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?

ok, this has been very helpful and i appreciate everyone's input.  thank you.

Original Post by melkor:

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.

First of all I am not against strength training, I am simply stating that weight lifting is not necessary for it. I use heavy resistance bands and my body fat % is currently at 9%. I am not big and hefty looking at all. And I am fine with that. 

The other thing to take into account here is the fact that long term weight training DOES damage your joints, so resistance exercises using your own body weight and/or resistance bands should be encouraged as an exchange for weight lifting, especially in women and guys who are not trying to be big.

You can get the equivalent of 40 pound dumbells with a really good resistance tube. That is a damn good equivalent in my opinion. All I am saying is extremely heavy weight lifting is not necessary for optimal health, and in the end might even hinder it as some studies have even suggested long term heavy weight lifting causes micro cellular damage to internal organs, aortic tearing, and might even contribute to kidney and liver damage. Remember, I am talking HEAVY weight lifting, not (moderate 20-40 pound dumbells) weight lifting, which still effect the joints more than the equivalent in resistance tubes. 

In the end I think what it comes down to is not a question of this versus that, but a question of getting the right formula for you, your body type and your dispositions. Which is not to say genes are your 'destiny' but that they do play somewhat of a role in what works best for you. I am not saying genetic predisposition will stop you from being healthy, but will lead you to your health goal through a different path than someone else. There is no bible of what is right. Just do what is best, instinctively and genetically, for you. 

Well, at least you've found an interesting new point to argue, instead of the boring old cardio bunny argument that cardio isn't as useless as the science and practical experience shows it to be ;)

 If you're interested in health and longevity, get strong. Do some cardio as well for those health benefits, but as that cohort study shows, the stronger really do live longer. Possibly because strength training reverses the effects of aging.

 (Side note - I think that most people could do with taking a look at Mark Sisson's Primal blueprint as a starting point for their own experimentation.  Like all low-carbers he's a little nuts, but I think he's on to a way of thinking that's likely to be a productive direction to go. Even if he can only have my oats over my dead body :)

 I'm also intereded to know how your body would tell the difference in increased resistance from doing a regular squat with half your bodyweight on your neck and a one-legged unweighted squat? Resistance is resistance, up to a point. The only problem with bodyweight-based training is that at a certain point you need to modify the exercises to place yourself at a mechanical disadvantage to have them be strenuous enough to produce an adaptation response - and this mechanical disadvantage translates into inappropriate spinal shear forces and excessive joint loading. Bodyweight isn't a bad place to start unless you're way too heavy, and you should master your own body before adding external loading, but there are decided limits to how useful a pure-bodyweight regime is from both a (joint) health and (evolutionary) fitness perspecitve.

 Oh, yes, resistance bands - can be useful, especially if you get Jumpstretch bands or the equivalent, but do you have a link to the actual studies you say exist?

 I mean, I'm aware that most of the Westside Barbell guys are more than a little dysfunctional and prone to joint damage because their steroid use and mechanical carryover from their lifting assistance gear allows them to use weights that are far too heavy for the structural integrity of human joints and bones, but I have never seen peer-reviewed research that suggest any detrimental effects for anyone who isn't a crazy powerlifter and/or body builder on enough drugs to stock a small hospital. Kidney, liver and assorted circulatory damage is a well-known side effect of most oral steroids and a large part of why I think most of the modern "any drug I can get my hands on" bodybuilders are going to drop dead before they reach 55, but that's not exactly a side effect of strength training - and also fairly irrelevant to John and Jane Doe's moderate exercise regime.Or even a not-so-moderate one that doesn't include the excesses of powerlifting - anything taken to an extreme is bad for you.

 You know, the instinctive argument sounds plausible until you consider what your instinctive response to a sugar-laden glazed chocolate donut is - your instincts are not always a good guide. You need to temper them with reason even if your instincts are telling you that "Food with sugar and fat? Lots more, please!" - your instincs are not neccesarily adapted to the modern environment.

 I'll give you one thing - goals are individual and different goals require different training regimes. However, while genetic predispositions play a role in determining what sort of goal is easier for you to reach and makes a bit of a difference in determining the best way to go about it, it's a lot smaller than you seem to think. The difference in training and diet regimes are however not dictated by your genes, but by your end goals.

Original Post by melkor:

 The difference in training and diet regimes are however not dictated by your genes, but by your end goals.

 That's not true I gain 3 inches on each thigh every time I even pass the squat rack

Original Post by melkor:

 Oh, yes, resistance bands - can be useful, especially if you get Jumpstretch bands or the equivalent, but do you have a link to the actual studies you say exist?

 I mean, I'm aware that most of the Westside Barbell guys are more than a little dysfunctional and prone to joint damage because their steroid use and mechanical carryover from their lifting assistance gear allows them to use weights that are far too heavy for the structural integrity of human joints and bones, but I have never seen peer-reviewed research that suggest any detrimental effects for anyone who isn't a crazy powerlifter and/or body builder on enough drugs to stock a small hospital.

Just to point out, the westside barbell guys are also pretty well known for useing... wait for it... RESISTANCE BANDS. 

Yup, and Jumpstretch is their favoured brand, 'cause anything made of lesser quality material they'd just tear apart like tissue paper ;)

 So it's not like resistance bands are useless, they're just not a replacement for free weights since you don't get the GTO and propriopercetive activation using them. Well, unless you use them like the Westside guys to provide variable resistance in a lift.

 resistance bands are convenient but i agree that is it not as effective as weights.  i prefer dumb bells. 

what about something like lunges, to a certain point it'll be useless right?

and what if you lift heavier weights, does that mean the strenght training session can be shorter?

what if you do weights for only 30 mins, is it still crucial to ate afterwards? because i've always heard that you should eat protein for muscle recovery and there that "window" that you just got to take advantage of.  i find it unnecessary, but i'm not sure.

Original Post by melkor:

Well, at least you've found an interesting new point to argue, instead of the boring old cardio bunny argument that cardio isn't as useless as the science and practical experience shows it to be ;)

 If you're interested in health and longevity, get strong. Do some cardio as well for those health benefits, but as that cohort study shows, the stronger really do live longer. Possibly because strength training reverses the effects of aging.

 (Side note - I think that most people could do with taking a look at Mark Sisson's Primal blueprint as a starting point for their own experimentation.  Like all low-carbers he's a little nuts, but I think he's on to a way of thinking that's likely to be a productive direction to go. Even if he can only have my oats over my dead body :)

 I'm also intereded to know how your body would tell the difference in increased resistance from doing a regular squat with half your bodyweight on your neck and a one-legged unweighted squat? Resistance is resistance, up to a point. The only problem with bodyweight-based training is that at a certain point you need to modify the exercises to place yourself at a mechanical disadvantage to have them be strenuous enough to produce an adaptation response - and this mechanical disadvantage translates into inappropriate spinal shear forces and excessive joint loading. Bodyweight isn't a bad place to start unless you're way too heavy, and you should master your own body before adding external loading, but there are decided limits to how useful a pure-bodyweight regime is from both a (joint) health and (evolutionary) fitness perspecitve.

 Oh, yes, resistance bands - can be useful, especially if you get Jumpstretch bands or the equivalent, but do you have a link to the actual studies you say exist?

 I mean, I'm aware that most of the Westside Barbell guys are more than a little dysfunctional and prone to joint damage because their steroid use and mechanical carryover from their lifting assistance gear allows them to use weights that are far too heavy for the structural integrity of human joints and bones, but I have never seen peer-reviewed research that suggest any detrimental effects for anyone who isn't a crazy powerlifter and/or body builder on enough drugs to stock a small hospital. Kidney, liver and assorted circulatory damage is a well-known side effect of most oral steroids and a large part of why I think most of the modern "any drug I can get my hands on" bodybuilders are going to drop dead before they reach 55, but that's not exactly a side effect of strength training - and also fairly irrelevant to John and Jane Doe's moderate exercise regime.Or even a not-so-moderate one that doesn't include the excesses of powerlifting - anything taken to an extreme is bad for you.

 You know, the instinctive argument sounds plausible until you consider what your instinctive response to a sugar-laden glazed chocolate donut is - your instincts are not always a good guide. You need to temper them with reason even if your instincts are telling you that "Food with sugar and fat? Lots more, please!" - your instincs are not neccesarily adapted to the modern environment.

 I'll give you one thing - goals are individual and different goals require different training regimes. However, while genetic predispositions play a role in determining what sort of goal is easier for you to reach and makes a bit of a difference in determining the best way to go about it, it's a lot smaller than you seem to think. The difference in training and diet regimes are however not dictated by your genes, but by your end goals.

Adaptation exercises are not restricted to how much weight is applied. Amount of repetitions has a lot to do with it. 

So, if you are doing push ups for example (as someone recently reminded me on another thread) you would add to your repetitions to increase your adaptability resistance. 

This is how they train people in the military. By adding repetitions instead of weight. It increases endurance plus strength, by forcing your body to adapt to pushing one, two, three or more reps further. And without turning you into  the incredible hulk in the process.

Similarly, this is how a lot of martial arts schools teach their students physical endurance as well. Pushing beyond the limit in terms of duration of exercise as opposed to adding more weight. 

Either way you can only go so far, you can't lift 10 thousand pounds and you can't do 10 million push ups. But I still think weights are proven bad for the joints in the long term.

And this is from pure observation. Any middle aged guy I have ever met who'd been lifting weights most of his adult life had some sort of joint (and in some cases tendon) problems. Even my friends who are my age (early 20s) who've been lifting for only a couple of years complain of constant aches and pains from joint popping and stress. 

What I can recommend to those who continue to lift heavy weights is to offset any potential long term joint issues by practicing power yoga after each weight lifting session,  if you cannot then you may suffer long term joint pain and issues. 

There was one study, I cannot seem to find the link, I read it a couple of months ago, which pretty much tackled aortic separation in heavy weight lifters and how this undetected separation led to internal organ damage by restricting internal circulation due to aortic damage. 

In the end, none of us has all the answers. I am just trying to help people with whatever insights I have, just as anyone else here is attempting to do. We all have some insight to offer, we should keep an opened perspective and try what is suggested before passing ultimate judgement.

As for right now I suggest it unnecessary for anyone of any weight to exceed dumbells of 40 pounds in weight. That is my opinion based on observation. What should instead be employed, instead of adding weight, is adding reps. I think this is healthier in the long term in terms of resistance adaptation techniques. But I once again emphasize you can do this with your own body weight and/or resistance bands which cause little to no joint symptoms. 

I have several friends that are competition weight lifters, and figure competitors.  Every one of them without variation says that weight lifting is important to tone, but it's really diet composition and caloric intake that help them to get ready for their competitions.  Most of them use only minimal amounts of cardio to warm up followed by intense weight regimes.    I have some friends that have been working with Ellington Darden in Florida.  He's advocating less working out, and seeing gains in a lot of his clients with fewer reps, focus on form, and slowing down the speed of the exercises.  Check out Drdarden.com for more on his H.I.T. program (my friend personally had a 1/2" increase in his bicep size on this program in about a month, though I do realize that not everyone can workout with Dr. Darden, there is a lot of information on the website including before and after pictures of my friend ("California Brothers visit Florida"  is the link on the website to my friend's story.)).  For those that don't know Ellington Darden was one of the primary designers for Nautilus in the 70's, and won several competitions of his own in the 60's.  He and his wife both are still in awesome condition despite being older.

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

Adaptation exercises are not restricted to how much weight is applied. Amount of repetitions has a lot to do with it. 

So, if you are doing push ups for example (as someone recently reminded me on another thread) you would add to your repetitions to increase your adaptability resistance. 

This is how they train people in the military. By adding repetitions instead of weight. It increases endurance plus strength, by forcing your body to adapt to pushing one, two, three or more reps further. And without turning you into  the incredible hulk in the process.

Similarly, this is how a lot of martial arts schools teach their students physical endurance as well. Pushing beyond the limit in terms of duration of exercise as opposed to adding more weight. 

Either way you can only go so far, you can't lift 10 thousand pounds and you can't do 10 million push ups. But I still think weights are proven bad for the joints in the long term.

And this is from pure observation. Any middle aged guy I have ever met who'd been lifting weights most of his adult life had some sort of joint (and in some cases tendon) problems. Even my friends who are my age (early 20s) who've been lifting for only a couple of years complain of constant aches and pains from joint popping and stress. 

What I can recommend to those who continue to lift heavy weights is to offset any potential long term joint issues by practicing power yoga after each weight lifting session,  if you cannot then you may suffer long term joint pain and issues. 

There was one study, I cannot seem to find the link, I read it a couple of months ago, which pretty much tackled aortic separation in heavy weight lifters and how this undetected separation led to internal organ damage by restricting internal circulation due to aortic damage. 

In the end, none of us has all the answers. I am just trying to help people with whatever insights I have, just as anyone else here is attempting to do. We all have some insight to offer, we should keep an opened perspective and try what is suggested before passing ultimate judgement.

As for right now I suggest it unnecessary for anyone of any weight to exceed dumbells of 40 pounds in weight. That is my opinion based on observation. What should instead be employed, instead of adding weight, is adding reps. I think this is healthier in the long term in terms of resistance adaptation techniques. But I once again emphasize you can do this with your own body weight and/or resistance bands which cause little to no joint symptoms. 

 

I am pretty neutral on this subject, but I have to say it sounds like you are advocating the `fat-burning zone` myth that high reps of low weight is beneficial to muscle gain/fat loss. However it has been under intense scrutiny for being false (which is funny how you`ll still see the `fat burning zone` on your cardio machines), and the only way to *efficiently* create muscle is to use as much weight as you can take for a low amount of reps.

For an easy (but somewhat misleading) intro to this, see Jim Karas` "Cardio-Free Diet". Don`t get mislead that cardio isnt important- just remember that if you are doing your weight lifting efficiently, then you are, in effect, performing cardio (heart rate up=cardio). Endurance training is another bag of beans, and we are not discussing that here.

And to the OP, yes, if you perform higher weight combined with the most *efficient* positions, then you can effectively cut your training time. Sounds good to me!

For what its worth - I had to "leave the gym behind" due to marriage and 3 young kids. So I needed an alternative because I still wanted to stay t\in shape and needed to be for the family. Of all people, my mother in law forwarded me a link to one of Joey Atlas's websites. All of his stuff is bodyweight training and I could do it on my schedule at home which is perfect. There's no music or other people - just him demonstrating the entire workout, all the reps and stuff.

I'm very happy with the results and I'm actually very surprised at what can be accomplished without all the stuff we find in the health club. My husband also does Joey's abs and core program after seeing how his lower body program for women is presented - he likes Joeys style, like no hype no bs.

I hope I helped ya,

Tina

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter: Adaptation exercises are not restricted to how much weight is applied. Amount of repetitions has a lot to do with it. So, if you are doing push ups for example (as someone recently reminded me on another thread) you would add to your repetitions to increase your adaptability resistance. 

This is how they train people in the military. By adding repetitions instead of weight. It increases endurance plus strength, by forcing your body to adapt to pushing one, two, three or more reps further. And without turning you into  the incredible hulk in the process.

Similarly, this is how a lot of martial arts schools teach their students physical endurance as well. Pushing beyond the limit in terms of duration of exercise as opposed to adding more weight. 

Either way you can only go so far, you can't lift 10 thousand pounds and you can't do 10 million push ups. But I still think weights are proven bad for the joints in the long term.

And this is from pure observation. Any middle aged guy I have ever met who'd been lifting weights most of his adult life had some sort of joint (and in some cases tendon) problems. Even my friends who are my age (early 20s) who've been lifting for only a couple of years complain of constant aches and pains from joint popping and stress. 

What I can recommend to those who continue to lift heavy weights is to offset any potential long term joint issues by practicing power yoga after each weight lifting session,  if you cannot then you may suffer long term joint pain and issues. 

There was one study, I cannot seem to find the link, I read it a couple of months ago, which pretty much tackled aortic separation in heavy weight lifters and how this undetected separation led to internal organ damage by restricting internal circulation due to aortic damage. 

In the end, none of us has all the answers. I am just trying to help people with whatever insights I have, just as anyone else here is attempting to do. We all have some insight to offer, we should keep an opened perspective and try what is suggested before passing ultimate judgement.

As for right now I suggest it unnecessary for anyone of any weight to exceed dumbells of 40 pounds in weight. That is my opinion based on observation. What should instead be employed, instead of adding weight, is adding reps. I think this is healthier in the long term in terms of resistance adaptation techniques. But I once again emphasize you can do this with your own body weight and/or resistance bands which cause little to no joint symptoms. 

 

As I said,: at least you've picked an interesting new way to be wrong about basic physiology.

 You're misreading what strength qualities are trained versus what strength qualities you need to train - adding reps moves you from the maximal strength training end to the strength endurance part straight to the endurance continuum (see 6 to 8 reps or 8 to 12 reps or 10 to 15 reps does it matter from the FAQ/Forum library for details). At some point it stops being strength training and starts being endurance, and when you're not doing strength training while dieting you start to lose muscle mass. Lose 40% of your lean mass and you're dead, so I'd rather avoid starting down that road any sooner than I can help it.

 It's not a bad idea to train strength endurance as well - it is a very bad idea to only train strength endurance, just like it's a very bad idea to only train maximal strength, cardio endurance, flexibility, or any of the physical qualities you can train - only doing one thing sets you up for muscle imbalances and the consequent myriad dysfunctions and repetitive-strain injuries you think you're going to avoid with your current training regime.

 Because your anecdotal examples are not science. Johns Hopkins, among others have shown the exact opposite - it's the strength imbalances and subsequent wear and tear on your joints from them not tracking properly in the groove where they're supposed to be from not lifting weights or training with an imbalanced bench-and-biceps program that's the problem, not the weights. So if those people in your anecdotes have been following the typical imbalanced bodybuilder program, yeah, that could have been a contributing factor, It's easy to train yourself into being a dysfunctional inwardly-rotated Neanderthal if you don't know what you're doing or aren't paying attention, I've done it myself a few times.

 What is yoga supposed to do now? Granted, hatha can help destress you and stretch out tight muscles, while vinyasa or Asthanga can help increase movement competency, but so can foam rolling and a proper stretching/soft-tissue work protocol, and in many cases better unless you have a very competent teacher. Which is no different to anything else - I've seen some pretty incompetent lifting coaches too so it's not like using a barbell magically grants you the knowledge to do it right ;)

  Weight lifters who do no cardio are prone to artoscleriosis, or arterial hardening, which is a known risk factor for aortic separation. Weight lifters who do no cardio is pretty much synonymous with powerlifters in the heavyweight division, so unless your name is Andy Bolton and you're deadlifting 1003lbs or thereabouts or you're aiming to compete with him, it's not a concern if you make sure to get a 30 minute walk 3 times weekly.

 Why is 40lbs a limit? Depending on the exercise in question it's a weight that's never going to be reached (lateral raises), useful but middling-light (curls) or completely pointless waste of time (rows, deadlifts) - for me. For anyone else, it depends - arbitrary limits like that is a serious failing because you fail to account for individual differences in muscle developement and fail to scale it to your trainee's ability. To get hung up on absolute numbers is completely unhelpful - do you think your 40lbs limit works the same for me at 190lbs and someone else at 130lbs?

 Bodyweight can be a good start if it's not too much or too little weight - so can resistance bands. But to train and have a progressive adaptation you need progressive overload and that's not really easy to do with either resistance bands or bodyweight, they're both difficult to change the loading parameters to scale them properly to your ability.

Original Post by melkor:

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter: Adaptation exercises are not restricted to how much weight is applied. Amount of repetitions has a lot to do with it. So, if you are doing push ups for example (as someone recently reminded me on another thread) you would add to your repetitions to increase your adaptability resistance. 

This is how they train people in the military. By adding repetitions instead of weight. It increases endurance plus strength, by forcing your body to adapt to pushing one, two, three or more reps further. And without turning you into  the incredible hulk in the process.

Similarly, this is how a lot of martial arts schools teach their students physical endurance as well. Pushing beyond the limit in terms of duration of exercise as opposed to adding more weight. 

Either way you can only go so far, you can't lift 10 thousand pounds and you can't do 10 million push ups. But I still think weights are proven bad for the joints in the long term.

And this is from pure observation. Any middle aged guy I have ever met who'd been lifting weights most of his adult life had some sort of joint (and in some cases tendon) problems. Even my friends who are my age (early 20s) who've been lifting for only a couple of years complain of constant aches and pains from joint popping and stress. 

What I can recommend to those who continue to lift heavy weights is to offset any potential long term joint issues by practicing power yoga after each weight lifting session,  if you cannot then you may suffer long term joint pain and issues. 

There was one study, I cannot seem to find the link, I read it a couple of months ago, which pretty much tackled aortic separation in heavy weight lifters and how this undetected separation led to internal organ damage by restricting internal circulation due to aortic damage. 

In the end, none of us has all the answers. I am just trying to help people with whatever insights I have, just as anyone else here is attempting to do. We all have some insight to offer, we should keep an opened perspective and try what is suggested before passing ultimate judgement.

As for right now I suggest it unnecessary for anyone of any weight to exceed dumbells of 40 pounds in weight. That is my opinion based on observation. What should instead be employed, instead of adding weight, is adding reps. I think this is healthier in the long term in terms of resistance adaptation techniques. But I once again emphasize you can do this with your own body weight and/or resistance bands which cause little to no joint symptoms. 

 

As I said,: at least you've picked an interesting new way to be wrong about basic physiology.

 You're misreading what strength qualities are trained versus what strength qualities you need to train - adding reps moves you from the maximal strength training end to the strength endurance part straight to the endurance continuum (see 6 to 8 reps or 8 to 12 reps or 10 to 15 reps does it matter from the FAQ/Forum library for details). At some point it stops being strength training and starts being endurance, and when you're not doing strength training while dieting you start to lose muscle mass. Lose 40% of your lean mass and you're dead, so I'd rather avoid starting down that road any sooner than I can help it.

 It's not a bad idea to train strength endurance as well - it is a very bad idea to only train strength endurance, just like it's a very bad idea to only train maximal strength, cardio endurance, flexibility, or any of the physical qualities you can train - only doing one thing sets you up for muscle imbalances and the consequent myriad dysfunctions and repetitive-strain injuries you think you're going to avoid with your current training regime.

 Because your anecdotal examples are not science. Johns Hopkins, among others have shown the exact opposite - it's the strength imbalances and subsequent wear and tear on your joints from them not tracking properly in the groove where they're supposed to be from not lifting weights or training with an imbalanced bench-and-biceps program that's the problem, not the weights. So if those people in your anecdotes have been following the typical imbalanced bodybuilder program, yeah, that could have been a contributing factor, It's easy to train yourself into being a dysfunctional inwardly-rotated Neanderthal if you don't know what you're doing or aren't paying attention, I've done it myself a few times.

 What is yoga supposed to do now? Granted, hatha can help destress you and stretch out tight muscles, while vinyasa or Asthanga can help increase movement competency, but so can foam rolling and a proper stretching/soft-tissue work protocol, and in many cases better unless you have a very competent teacher. Which is no different to anything else - I've seen some pretty incompetent lifting coaches too so it's not like using a barbell magically grants you the knowledge to do it right ;)

  Weight lifters who do no cardio are prone to artoscleriosis, or arterial hardening, which is a known risk factor for aortic separation. Weight lifters who do no cardio is pretty much synonymous with powerlifters in the heavyweight division, so unless your name is Andy Bolton and you're deadlifting 1003lbs or thereabouts or you're aiming to compete with him, it's not a concern if you make sure to get a 30 minute walk 3 times weekly.

 Why is 40lbs a limit? Depending on the exercise in question it's a weight that's never going to be reached (lateral raises), useful but middling-light (curls) or completely pointless waste of time (rows, deadlifts) - for me. For anyone else, it depends - arbitrary limits like that is a serious failing because you fail to account for individual differences in muscle developement and fail to scale it to your trainee's ability. To get hung up on absolute numbers is completely unhelpful - do you think your 40lbs limit works the same for me at 190lbs and someone else at 130lbs?

 Bodyweight can be a good start if it's not too much or too little weight - so can resistance bands. But to train and have a progressive adaptation you need progressive overload and that's not really easy to do with either resistance bands or bodyweight, they're both difficult to change the loading parameters to scale them properly to your ability.

I have read world renown athletes/trainers who have advocated the complete opposite parameters. One will say endurance, the other will say strength training overload. What I know is that, in terms of practical use, endurance means endurance. 

Now I am not a fan of professional boxing, but I have done some boxer specific exercises, like speed bag, foot work, jump rope, and the like. This led me to study great boxers versus mediocre boxers. Muhammad being a great boxer whilst any number of other boxers being mediocre.

One of the differences I have noticed between Ali and other boxers, historically, and in terms of my study of each athlete, is that ali invariably did a lot more endurance, as opposed to strength, work than these other boxers. And most of these other fighters were invariably bigger and stronger than him (case in point being George Foreman). 

You can call this anecdotal if you wish, I have no problem with that. But it is really just a sign that, in terms of practicality, endurance leads to better performance. And this has shown to be the result of a better cardio disposition relative to your sport or whatever task you are performing in daly life. Even exercise. Yes, endurance does increase your ability to better perform. There is really no argument that can be put forth against this principle. 

This is why martial arts schools advocate endurance training, as well as why a trained sprinter can run 10 miles and someone who is use to strength training cannot, without the proper endurance training. Again, the reason being better cardio disposition as a result of the endurance training regiment involved. Swimming is another example of this. Your average body builder would not have the endurance or the cardo disposition to swim one 10th that of your average professional swimmer unless he drops body weight and adopts a more chiseled body. 

Swimming and running are endurance exercises, weight lifting is an overload exercise. Sometimes being 250 pounds or more of mostly muscle can be a serious hindrance in terms of practical endurance performance. 

You really don't see too many gigantic swimmers, and even the best martial artists tend to be small and compact as opposed to big and muscular. 

But isn't the original post on lifting for weight loss, so isn't the entire discussion of what is best for performance moot? Or did I miss a subject change?

Original Post by amethystgirl:

But isn't the original post on lifting for weight loss, so isn't the entire discussion of what is best for performance moot? Or did I miss a subject change?

 This happens with every weights for fat loss discussion because the majority of people don't want to do weights because they are a lot of work. I'm sure that'll twist up some vaginas but it's the truth.

Original Post by spirochete:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

But isn't the original post on lifting for weight loss, so isn't the entire discussion of what is best for performance moot? Or did I miss a subject change?

 This happens with every weights for fat loss discussion because the majority of people don't want to do weights because they are a lot of work. I'm sure that'll twist up some vaginas but it's the truth.

You're speculating as to why I am bringing this up. Furthermore you are implying that those who do resistance/endurance are not working as hard as weight lifters, which is an erroneous judgement to pass. Tell any number of heavy weight lifters to take a 10 mile jog, or a 5 mile swim, tomorrow, then tell me what the result is. Thanks. 

Actually, spiro is a pretty avid runner in addition to her weight lifting, and floggingsully, another lifter on this site, does triathlons.

My point is that in every paragraph of your verrrry long post, you talk about how important endurance is for certain activities. No question that if you are doing martial arts or swimming or running or anything like that, you need endurance. But the original post was about weight loss, not performing certain activities, and weight training with heavy weights is good for that. That's not saying that endurance training doesn't have its uses, but instead of going on a diatribe about how endurance is more practical, try considering the goals of the original poster, not your goals.

*sigh*
 
 You've really lost track of where you were going with this, haven't you?

 Why the 40lbs limit? Is that going to work the same for a 97lbs 17-year old girl as it is for me? Why resistance bands with their resistance profiles that do not mimic any functional strength need in your daily life?

 Why is what professional athletes on more drugs than any three pharmacies stock relevant to the discussion of how the average person should train?

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

You're speculating as to why I am bringing this up So tell us why your bringing it up? what do athletic performance endpoints have to do with a weightloss discussion?. Furthermore you are implying that those who do resistance/endurance are not working as hard as weight lifters, which is an erroneous judgement to pass. Tell any number of heavy weight lifters to take a 10 mile jog, or a 5 mile swim, tomorrow, then tell me what the result is I was second in my age group at my last 10-miler, Eric Cressey has some interesting thoughts about heavy weightlifting for distance runners you might want to check out. Thanks you're welcome. 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

But isn't the original post on lifting for weight loss, so isn't the entire discussion of what is best for performance moot? Or did I miss a subject change?

No, I am actually speaking in terms of increasing performance through endurance. This means that exercises, in time, will be performed with more adaptability resistance through endurance training, which can make it just as hard, and even harder, in several ways, than lifting 200 pound barbells 10 times in a row.

I want to say that I give respect to anyone who does the latter too. I was simply offering an alternative to those who do not want to build a lot of giant muscles. But compact muscles that are still strong and endurance trained. And again, I emphasize the latter with regard to practicality in real world situations as well.