lifting weights for weight loss

if i lift weights 3 times a week and the only cardio i do is walking and i mean minimal walking, will this still work?  there's been a lot of articles on supporting weight training for weight loss because it burns fat better than cardio, but i'm confused.  is it because the toning and increase in muscle mass that burns fat? or is it because it raises the metabolism?

It's a combination of both, actually.

Muscle is metabolically active which basically means that muscle burns calories better than other body tissue does. I'm not sure about the validity of this, but every extra pound of muscle apparently burns 50 extra calories a day. There was a study performed a while back in which researchers learned that muscle training boosted the body's basal metabolic rate by about 15%.

Weight lifting 3 times a week is actually a great way to improve muscle tone and build muscle.

The definiton of cardio is "the heart." The definition of "vascular" is a group of blood vessels in the body. Cardiovascular, or aerobic exercise, can be paired with muscle training for the best weight loss. You're exercising large groups of muscles with the cardio while improving heart function, blood pressure, and lung function, and the muscle training builds muscle and keeps the body from burning muscle tissue during aerobic exercise.

Yes, it is not only possible, but possibly optimal. First off, the last post is on the right track however, 50 calories per pound is much to high, but there is definately a boost in BMR.

The Cardiovascular system can be trained in many ways but most people assume it just means hopping on a treadmill and/or going outside for a long slow run. But weightlifting can train the cardiovascular system as well, assuming the rest periods are short enough and the exercises recruits enough muscles. 

It is important to make sure that you are not just picking up the 5 pound dumbells and working to "tone" the muscle or just to feel the "burn." These are fallacies of weightlifting and fitness in general.

People get too caught up in there magazines thinking all they need to do is "tone" when in reality there is no such thing (kind of:). Tone is just muscle in the absence of fat. You cannot change the length in anyway. It can grow (hypertrophy) or shrink (atrophy). There is something called myogenic tone, which is actually trained the opposite way most people think: Through Maximal weights of 1-3 reps!!! This type of tone is what creates muscle density, but be advised as this is for very advanced trainees.

I've rambled on here too much, so let me conclude that you certainly can reach you weight loss goals with minimal cardio, however your diet will have the largest impact.

got it.  thank you ching, this make sense. 

Thanks for clearing that up about the BMR + muscle. I didn't think 50 calories sounded right but it's what I heard.

I think its like 15 cals/lb muscle    not sure thoughh

i thought that if someone who's overweight lift weights they'll just tone up a  bit by still have this layer of fat, so now you'll look bigger than you did before, you know what i mean?

Original Post by helpless:

i thought that if someone who's overweight lift weights they'll just tone up a  bit by still have this layer of fat, so now you'll look bigger than you did before, you know what i mean?

Well yeah, if you're eating more calories than you burn. That'll happen no matter what you do. The point is lifting heavy (relative to you) burns fat better than diet or diet plus cardio.

so along as you lift but have a deficit, you'll burn fat?

Yes. You can sit on the couch all day and lose fat if you're not eating enough to maintain your current weight. Weights actually accelerate the process much better than diet and diet plus cardio.

in my eyes

weights are perfect for keeping weight off

they do increase the metabolism, due breaking down muscle which subsequently needs to be regeneration / repaired

this only happen if you make sure the muscle is taken to the level of fatigue

start with 10 - 14 reps max per set

and do three sets per muscle group before you hit ten reps on your last set, you should not be able to lift any more of that weight

this is muscle failure (and should burn before you hit this point)

do compound exercises, these consist of bench press, squats, deadlifts and shoulder press, hits large amount of muscle group

also if you can, incorperate body weight exercises, (you may even totally do body weight exercises, and will make sure you wont get too big for your frame .. i.e. be perfect for your frame ) all of these exercises per set must be done until you cannot do more (again, muscle failure)

eg.

reverse press ups for back and biceps, squats for legs and lower back, press up for triceps and chest, pull ups for back(hits different back muscles) and biceps, you'll find great physiques can be obtained from purely body weight exercises, just make sure you dont let them get too easy, i.e. you can pull out 100 press up, vary your angle by putting feet on a bench for instance or putting your hand close together etc. as with pull ups you can do overhand, underhand, wide grip etc. this will make sur eyou hit more muscle groups)

you can also vary these exercises with in one routine

for instance my press up routine goes,   normal press ups x 5, narrow x5 staggered leftup and right up 5 each, and i dont stop between reps until i cant do any more, i aim to get up to 80 pressups all together, if i have to stop i stop but i complete the whole thing

this will increase your metabolism the most and hit a lot of muscles

body weight exercises also work up a sweat

make sure your workout stays under 45 - 50 minutes because hormones released after this time become detrimental to your work out efforts

leave no more than 90 seconds between sets and 2 mins between seperate work outs (but DO give a break inbetween)

try and do not use machines. they dont allow you to work out all the muscles ANd your core muscles, which are very important

DO use correct form

and use lower weights until you have correct form ask the people at the gym, there is a reason they are there and you pay out of your arse for it.

dont worry about getting too massive, you are female and you MORE than likely lack the amount of testosterone needed

and never skip the same exercise again and again, this will cause you problems in the future,muscles come in pairs, if one is too weak to the other (i.e. back weaker than the front) you willl get muscle/joint problems

and make sure you warm up for heavy weight

 and well in general

seems like a lot to take in

and correct me someone if ive made a mistake

Original Post by spirochete:

Yes. You can sit on the couch all day and lose fat if you're not eating enough to maintain your current weight. Weights actually accelerate the process much better than diet and diet plus cardio.

Well there are a lot of conflicting studies on this. And you need to take into account that different people and their different genetics, have different outcomes with different systems or regimens. There is no invariable absolute that says heavy weight lifting is always the number one fat burn answer.  I know people who do nothing but run 5 miles a day with no weight training at all and they have low body fat and solid 6 packs. On the other hand I have seen guys who bench press 300 pounds and still have less muscle definition than guys who do pilates 3 times a week. If this is genetics then it applies equally that different exercise regimens will work differently for different people. For some it'll be weights, for some it'll be cardio and diet, for some it'll be yoga, diet and maybe some resistance bands. Etc etc

No, its isn't. There's less genetic variation and there's less physiological variation than people think. It's the calorie intake of the individuals in question that makes the difference in their regimes in each case - and in every studied case, proper strength training leads to 20%-300% more fat loss per hour spent training than cardio.

Original Post by melkor:

No, its isn't. There's less genetic variation and there's less physiological variation than people think. It's the calorie intake of the individuals in question that makes the difference in their regimes in each case - and in every studied case, proper strength training leads to 20%-300% more fat loss per hour spent training than cardio.

I have seen several studies which indicate that genetics and predisposition to certain regimens plays an even handed role. Like I said most marathon runners (who are not weight lifters) have lower body fat than your average weight lifter. And they get there a lot faster and keep their metabolism there a lot longer. Look I know a lot of americans are into the big brawny thing and I am fine with that, just know that different people have different dispositions to different work out and exercise regimens. Pushing yours on someone like it is the bible is just not cool man. If something else other than extreme heavy weight lifting works for someone, why try to convert them to your view/experience. Obviously their experience differs greatly, which is evidence of variation. 

Original Post by melkor:

No, its isn't. There's less genetic variation and there's less physiological variation than people think. It's the calorie intake of the individuals in question that makes the difference in their regimes in each case - and in every studied case, proper strength training leads to 20%-300% more fat loss per hour spent training than cardio.

I have seen several studies which indicate that genetics and predisposition to certain regimens plays an even handed role. Like I said most marathon runners (who are not weight lifters) have lower body fat than your average weight lifter. And they get there a lot faster and keep their metabolism there a lot longer. Look I know a lot of americans are into the big brawny thing and I am fine with that, just know that different people have different dispositions to different work out and exercise regimens. Pushing yours on someone like it is the bible is just not cool man. If something else other than extreme heavy weight lifting works for someone, why try to convert them to your view/experience. Obviously their experience differs greatly, which is evidence of variation. 

I've recently started a new routine in which I am focusing more on weight training than cardio. I'm about two weeks into it. I am impressed by how my body is responding to lifting instead of cardio. I'm a bit of a cardio fiend and I started slacking on the lifting for a bit and it really reduced my muscle tone. I feel better, I look better, and I'm losing slowly. The first week I actually gained. I think probably different people respond to different approaches. Even if it has more to do with psychology than genetics, if it's what makes the difference than, well, there you are. Other times when I have been reducing calories and upping cardio my body feels physically weaker. This time, so far, I'm feeling stronger. It's great.

Good luck

~Heather

Weight training, in MOST studies has shown that its more efficient than cardio...

No body was talking about getting "buff". Thats not why we are saying its better, The burning of cals stops once your heart rate returns to normal with cardio. With weight lifting it continues to burn an elevated amount of cals up to an hour after the exercise is done.

As for genetics,  Yes there are variations but the effects are all minimal.  When it comes down to it all our bodys fuction the same way...  Im not saying that its not easier for person "A" to build muscle better than person "B", because people to have different hormone levels, What I saying is that the process the human body uses to burn energy and and rebuild your body is the same no matter what. 

Marathon runners also continually run on the daily basis. Some one who lifts can take a 2 week brake and wont even notice a different, with runners why do you think they have to train so far in advance to beable to run that marathon...    In respective to weight lifting when i set a new "respectable" goal of weight to lift, it might only take me a month or so to get there.

Im starting to ramble so ill leave it at that

Nope, most marathon runners have higher body fat percentages than most weight lifters - weight lifters compete in weight classes and fat mass is non-functional mass when you're trying to maximise your power-to-weight ratio. It's also non-functional for forward motion, but almost all mass, lean or otherwise is nonfunctional for that, and as a consequence marathoners lose excessive lean mass and are left with a higher body fat percentage - the skinny-fat look.

 Granted, the elite few professional athletes who run marathons for a living don't have that, but you can't use Marilson Gomes Dos Santos or Paula Radcliffe as the basis of comparison for John and Jane Doe's training regime.

 But no, genetics play a much smaller role than people think - you're reversing cause and effect. The combination of diet and training that is suited to your sport causes your genetics to express differently, but that doesn't mean that a different combination of diet and training wouldn't cause a different expression - just look at these identical twins.

 Genes are not destiny, unlike what you're trying to argue.

 Oh, and we're not talking 'buffness' or setting new power lifting records when we're talking about strength training, we're simply talking about a reasonable regime using resistance to get results like these from resistance training versus endurance training (Westcott, W., Fitness Management. Nov., 1991.)- or all the other studies referenced in Melkor Geeks Out: add your favourite study! where as you can see, a reasonable strength training regime causes from 20%-300% more fat loss than a cardio-based regime.

 There is good reason to include a reasonable level of cardio in your training regime, fat loss isn't the only fitness dimension worth worrying about. But when fat loss is the training parameter under discussion, there's no contest.

You could throw women and bone density in there, too melkor. That's a DAMN good reason to keep up those weights.

Yes, weight training plays an essential role in Bone density. Marothon running doesn't do much in that aspect except of the lower limbs. But there is a definate need to strengthen the arm flexors and extensors, lower back, increaseing the bone density of the spine and numerous other places not trained by running. Just running not will not train all functional capacities necessary for human life. Contrary to popular belief, yoga and pilates will NOT make you stronger, unless of course you are someone who is not capable to handle their body weight. And even if you couldnt, and through pilates you gained some strength, you would have to progressively gain weight to increase your strength as their must be a strong enough stimulus to force the body to adapt. I would rather not sit here and hate one pilates and yoga, but for the most part it does more damage then good by overstretching people in their muscles and joints making them more vulnerable to injury. Not to mention many of these people are going for back pain problems and they have to go into crazy positions when thay already lack the strength to support their frame to keep their spine in a neutral position. The last thinkg they need is MORE extention. Ok im done with that rant.

"Contrary to popular belief, yoga and pilates will NOT make you stronger, unless of course you are someone who is not capable to handle their body weight."

I would be willing to wager that more than three quarters of adult americans fall into the "not capable to handle their body weight" category which makes this type of exercise an excellent place to start.