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? 

I weight train 3 times a week, around 4 hours total. Burn anywhere between 320 to 450 per hour depending on the intensity (i.e. percentage of large compound movements in the program). Running at 6 mph I burn around 500 kcal/h. The difference is 180-50 per hour, or 120 - 33 kcal per 40 minutes. Now we add EPOC even if it is in the range of 30-50 kcal per day, and the difference is now almost negligible. Not to mention possible muscle gain and additional burn of 4 kcal per lb.

Oh, yeah, and running doesn't do a thing to make your arms/back look nicer ;)

P.S. I am not anti-cardio. Nor am I anti-running. (I plan to run 1/2 marathon this Fall). I just don't like it when someone takes false premises, then uses valid logical arguments to support their conclusion.  You don't burn 204 kcal/hour lifting if you burn 780 kcal/hour running. Unless by lifting you mean sitting on a bench and doing bicep curls with 10 min breaks between sets.

Original Post by maha-kisa:

I weight train 3 times a week, around 4 hours total. Burn anywhere between 320 to 450 per hour depending on the intensity (i.e. percentage of large compound movements in the program). Running at 6 mph I burn around 500 kcal/h. The difference is 180-50 per hour, or 120 - 33 kcal per 40 minutes. Now we add EPOC even if it is in the range of 30-50 kcal per day, and the difference is now almost negligible. Not to mention possible muscle gain and additional burn of 4 kcal per lb.

Oh, yeah, and running doesn't do a thing to make your arms/back look nicer ;)

P.S. I am not anti-cardio. Nor am I anti-running. (I plan to run 1/2 marathon this Fall). I just don't like it when someone takes false premises, then uses valid logical arguments to support their conclusion.  You don't burn 204 kcal/hour lifting if you burn 780 kcal/hour running. Unless by lifting you mean sitting on a bench and doing bicep curls with 10 min breaks between sets.

 So on average you burn 1.25 calories a minute more running than you do weight lifting even using the high figure of 40 cals for lifting and 0 for running, not bad.  Oh, and you do know that that 4 cals per lb. of muscle is per day right?  And also that a typical runner will run more that 4 hours a week on top of the time that spend in the weight room?

Keep up the work, your back looks great.

The point is EPOC and the benifits of muscle versus fat are dramatically over sold in much of the fitness press and the numbers she is using are in line with the studies Melchor has posted.  Also the calorie numbers she is using are PAEE cals not total cals which is what most of you are using.

No, the numbers she's using are not in line with the posted studies. Nowhere near them in fact. And she's not using the right PAEE numbers for running at a moderate intensity. Nor is she using the correct PAEE numbers for strength training.

 Which have been severely underestimated anyway, according to Dr. Lonnie Lowery, president of the ASEP - remember that one? The PAEE numbers should be about 2-3 times what they are in that supposed authoritative manual.

And you're misunderstanding what PAEE means, apparently. It's not "extra calories burned above BMR baseline during this exercise period", it's "calories expended during this exercise period", so you're incorrect in assuming that the numbers she's using represents only the extra calorie burn of exercise; they are the total calorie burn during the exercise period. At least the way she's doing the math, they are.

And I love how you keep igoring the fat loss component - are you one of those weirdos who go on a diet to lose muscle and preserve fat?

 Her entire premise is that cardio will cause more fat loss, and that's just entirely false. What's been oversold for longer than you've been alive is the benefits of aerobic activity for fat loss.

One more thing came to my mind.

Do we all agree that

• Long term weight loss is generally 75% fat 25% lean tissue (slight caloric deficit) - either diet alone or diet + aerobic activity or aerobic activity alone
• ‘Starvation’ or very rapid weight loss is generally 50% fat, 50% lean tissue (severe caloric deficit) - crash diets, with or without aerobic activity. We'll ignore this one because we all know better than starving ourselves.
  
• weight training preserves almost 100% muscle even on a slight caloric deficit

?

Now, the author says 1 lb of fat burns 2 kcal a day, while 1 lbs of muscle tissue burns 6 kcal. Let's stick to these numbers.

Let's consider a 5'4", 155 lb woman. Her sedentary burn is around 1800.

If she slowly loses 40 lbs (to get to BMI of 20) via diet alone or cardio, but no weight lifting, she loses 30 lbs of fat and 10 lbs of muscle. So her BMR drops by 30*2+10*6=120 kcal/day.

If she lifts weights, she loses 40 lbs of fat, and her BMR only drops by 40*2=80 kcal a day.

If she's lucky and manages to build some muscle while losing, she may have lost 45 lbs of fat and gained 5 lbs of lean tissue. Thus her BMR only drops by (2*45)-(5*6)=60 kcal.

Not only can she eat extra 120-60=60 kcal, she also looks great - "toned" (I hate this word), lean. And besides, she's now much stronger.

So where's the benefit of aerobic exercise? That she'll get to her new, lower BMR slightly faster? Gee, thanks.

Another iffy argument - "Sorry, but muscle actually has a relatively low metabolic rate at rest. " OK. 1 lb of muscle only burns 6 kcal a day at rest.  But what if I'm active? What if I am doing both - lifting AND aerobic activities.  I burn more doing that earobic activity because I invested my time in building/preserving muscle. A 145 lb woman with 30% body fat burns fewer calories running than a 145 lb woman with 20% bodyfat.

Original Post by melkor:

No, the numbers she's using are not in line with the posted studies. Nowhere near them in fact. And she's not using the right PAEE numbers for running at a moderate intensity. Nor is she using the correct PAEE numbers for strength training.

 Which have been severely underestimated anyway, according to Dr. Lonnie Lowery, president of the ASEP - remember that one? The PAEE numbers should be about 2-3 times what they are in that supposed authoritative manual.

And you're misunderstanding what PAEE means, apparently. It's not "extra calories burned above BMR baseline during this exercise period", it's "calories expended during this exercise period", so you're incorrect in assuming that the numbers she's using represents only the extra calorie burn of exercise; they are the total calorie burn during the exercise period. At least the way she's doing the math, they are.

And I love how you keep igoring the fat loss component - are you one of those weirdos who go on a diet to lose muscle and preserve fat?

 Her entire premise is that cardio will cause more fat loss, and that's just entirely false. What's been oversold for longer than you've been alive is the benefits of aerobic activity for fat loss.

 Did you even read my post?  Her premise is that weight lifting has been over hyped which you have proven with your links.

Untrained muscle burns 5.7kcal/lbs/d. Trained muscle burns 7.2kcal/lbs/d - at rest.

 If you have 100lbs of lean mass and go from untrained to trained, you'll increase your at-rest burn by 150kcal/d assuming you strength train; if you stick to running, you get zip.

"are you one of those weirdos who go on a diet to lose muscle and preserve fat?"

This is funny, you should do stand up.

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by melkor:

 Did you even read my post? 

I did. You apparently didn't read mine.

 Which set of exercise causes more fat loss given isocaloric deficits?

 Given that your weight loss results are entirely controlled by diet; you will lose the same amount of weight no matter how you create a calorie deficit so your entire line of argumentation is utterly irrelevant to anything related to any fat loss goal whatsoever.

 The only thing exercise can control is what sort of tissue is lost as a result of the calorie deficit, and there aerobic/cardio activity makes almost no difference to your result.

 The article is trying to argue that some irrelevant parameters concerning calorie expenditure during exercise is even remotely relevant to the issue of what promotes more fat loss specifically, the same irrelevant argument you're trying to advance in fact.

Original Post by melkor:

Untrained muscle burns 5.7kcal/lbs/d. Trained muscle burns 7.2kcal/lbs/d - at rest.

 If you have 100lbs of lean mass and go from untrained to trained, you'll increase your at-rest burn by 150kcal/d assuming you strength train; if you stick to running, you get zip.

 I must have made you angry because you're clearly not think straight. 

Edit:  Or do you serious believe that there is no training effect on the muscles from running?

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by melkor:

Untrained muscle burns 5.7kcal/lbs/d. Trained muscle burns 7.2kcal/lbs/d - at rest.

 If you have 100lbs of lean mass and go from untrained to trained, you'll increase your at-rest burn by 150kcal/d assuming you strength train; if you stick to running, you get zip.

 I must have made you angry because you're clearly not think straight. 

Huh? Does math hurt your head now?

 100lbs(7.2-5.7)=150 kcal/d more. Running does not cause this increase in at-rest metabolic activity in muscle and does not lead to an increase in RMR. Running or other aerobic activity promotes growth of new capilaries and somewhat increases the cytoplasm in muscle, but the RMR depends on mitochondrial density and activity and that is not affected by aerobic activity, it's strictly a strength training side effect.

Original Post by melkor:

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by melkor:

Untrained muscle burns 5.7kcal/lbs/d. Trained muscle burns 7.2kcal/lbs/d - at rest.

 If you have 100lbs of lean mass and go from untrained to trained, you'll increase your at-rest burn by 150kcal/d assuming you strength train; if you stick to running, you get zip.

 I must have made you angry because you're clearly not think straight. 

Huh? Does math hurt your head now?

 100lbs(7.2-5.7)=150 kcal/d more. Running does not cause this increase in at-rest metabolic activity in muscle and does not lead to an increase in RMR.

 Do you have some convincing proof that either is true but I just don't believe you?

As far as PAEE, I used her definition:

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.

Since I assume she did too.

Oh, and not the math that's flawed it's the logic.

Edit: And for those that are new around here Melkor, who I greatly respect, and I have this argument about once a month.

Nothing like a healthy debate!  About health, no less!!!

I thought I was learning something here.  Now my head is just spinning! 

Increased energy requirements and changes in body composition with resistance training in older adults  WW Campbell, MC Crim, VR Young and WJ Evans American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 60, 167-175

 Strength training increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in healthy 50- to 65-yr-old men
 J Appl Physiol 76: 133-137, 1994;

 Energy balance in healthy adults

And each time, we do a little more digging and refine the research, and we end up with the recommendation being roughly the same - given that diet controls all of your result as far as scale weight goes, if that's your only criteria it doesn't matter what you do for exercise.

 For health, you can't do just one thing; if you read something like the Harvard Alumni study you'll see that people who include cardio in their lives live on average 10 year longer than the ones who don't, except marathon runners halve that benefit. So do cardio/aerobic activity, you'll live longer and enjoy your life more while you're doing it.

 Just don't overprioritize it, if you only do aerobic activity you're setting yourself up for problems in the long term.

Original Post by maha-kisa:

One more thing came to my mind.

Do we all agree that

• Long term weight loss is generally 75% fat 25% lean tissue (slight caloric deficit) - either diet alone or diet + aerobic activity or aerobic activity alone
• ‘Starvation’ or very rapid weight loss is generally 50% fat, 50% lean tissue (severe caloric deficit) - crash diets, with or without aerobic activity. We'll ignore this one because we all know better than starving ourselves.
  
• weight training preserves almost 100% muscle even on a slight caloric deficit

?

Now, the author says 1 lb of fat burns 2 kcal a day, while 1 lbs of muscle tissue burns 6 kcal. Let's stick to these numbers.

Let's consider a 5'4", 155 lb woman. Her sedentary burn is around 1800.

If she slowly loses 40 lbs (to get to BMI of 20) via diet alone or cardio, but no weight lifting, she loses 30 lbs of fat and 10 lbs of muscle. So her BMR drops by 30*2+10*6=120 kcal/day.

If she lifts weights, she loses 40 lbs of fat, and her BMR only drops by 40*2=80 kcal a day.

If she's lucky and manages to build some muscle while losing, she may have lost 45 lbs of fat and gained 5 lbs of lean tissue. Thus her BMR only drops by (2*45)-(5*6)=60 kcal.

Not only can she eat extra 120-60=60 kcal, she also looks great - "toned" (I hate this word), lean. And besides, she's now much stronger.

So where's the benefit of aerobic exercise? That she'll get to her new, lower BMR slightly faster? Gee, thanks.

 

Another iffy argument - "Sorry, but muscle actually has a relatively low metabolic rate at rest. " OK. 1 lb of muscle only burns 6 kcal a day at rest.  But what if I'm active? What if I am doing both - lifting AND aerobic activities.  I burn more doing that earobic activity because I invested my time in building/preserving muscle. A 145 lb woman with 30% body fat burns fewer calories running than a 145 lb woman with 20% bodyfat.

 I don't mean to ignore you, you make a valid point.  It's just that you've made up numbers to make your point dramatic then it really is. 

When we gain weight we gain muscle, we have to haul our fat asses around.  When we lose weight we don't need that extra muscle so we lose it too.  Some people want to keep the extra muscle so they weight train.  As long as they keep weight training they can keep the muscle but if they stop training the muscle is gone.  But a proper diet will not result in the loss of needed muscle no matter how much cardio you do or weight training you don't do.

Original Post by mds86:

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" ?

No it's not just you.  I can't even jog really nor do I enjoy it.  My body has never felt natural running- I'm downright awkward at it.   I can do step aerobics though until the cows come home and I walk at a pace of 3.5 mph-- that's just me.

Oh, and if you want to have beer in your diet, you've got to do cardio to earn the room for it in your calorie budget.

 I like beer, even if I loathe running. Taking a walk with a 20lbs backpack works for my purposes ;)

Original Post by trhawley:

When we gain weight we gain muscle, we have to haul our fat asses around.  When we lose weight we don't need that extra muscle so we lose it too.  Some people want to keep the extra muscle so they weight train.  As long as they keep weight training they can keep the muscle but if they stop training the muscle is gone.  But a proper diet will not result in the loss of needed muscle no matter how much cardio you do or weight training you don't do.

 I really hope this is true....because I do like running far more than weight training.  And I really tried to keep up with your posting for the last two pages, but you and melkor have gone way above my head.  I just needed a simple answer because I felt guilty for doing so much cardio and very little weight training.

If you kept up then you did better than me.  Somewhere along the way my eyes glazed over and little bit of spittle started running down my chin from the corner of my mouth.  Then I saw the word "beer" and I perked right back up again.

 And if your goal is to improve running performance - or endurance performace of any kind, rather than fat loss specifically - there's an awful lot of strength training that can be downright counterproductive for your goals.

 If your priority is sports-specific performance rather than fat loss, there are times when strength training is a hindrance more than a help. Adding muscle mass indiscriminately is a drag on athletic performance if your sport isn't bodybuilding.

Mmmmm.  Beeeeer.....

Well, actually I'm going for fat loss.  I just like running more than anything else.

I know, I know.  The words "yer doin' it wrong" are probably running through your head, melkor.  I know I need to be doing some weights as well.  I just don't wanna...

*sigh*