what's the point of cardio...

besides cardiovascular fitness and the fact that you can eat more calories? correct me if i'm wrong, but i vaguely remember a study that melkor showed saying that there's practically no difference if you diet alone or do cardio and keep the same calorie deficit.

does that mean i could stick to a 1200 cal plan and lift weights and expect to lose fat?

if so, what kind of strength training routine would i need eg. high/low weights, reps, how long? (keep in mind i'm a girl) currently i'm just using the machines in a sort of circuit kind of way and doing 8 reps with the heaviest weights i can manage.

besides cardiovascular fitness?  did you really ask that?

i went for a hike yesterday with a friend.  i'm 40, she's 26.  i'm 5'8" and 145 pounds; she's 5'11" and 130.  she was breathing hard within 20 minutes, and i was slowing my pace so she could keep up.  that's the point of cardio.

Yup, a deficit is a deficit... doesn't matter if you get it from intake of food or through cardio. And it looks like you got a good idea when it comes to high weight low reps... I would ask a trainer to show you how to use freeweights, but thats just my personal opinion...

I do think that your calorie intake is too low if you're not making up for the calories you burn while lifting... your weight loss *will* eventually stop if you do not give your body enough calories to survive...

 

I think cardio vascular fitness is probably the most important thing.. it's like saying what's the point of food besides it's nutritional value.

amen pgeorgian!.... duh whats the point??


exercise isnt only intended as a weight control remedy.

its about heart and respiratory health. lower blood pressure, increased size heart muscle and blood is pumped more effeciently  around the body

its about emotional health, activity produces increased levels of serotonin and dopamines in the brain. endorphins give you a feel good factor, and contentment

so if ur not lookn to lose weight you can do some exercise u can eat ur 2500 cals AND feel good!

Original Post by subwaybusker

does that mean i could stick to a 1200 cal plan and lift weights and expect to lose fat?

Reducing your calories and lifting heavy weights would result in fat loss, yes. 1200 seems too low, though - it's the bare minimum for a small, sedentary female. What are your stats? (age, height, weight)

if so, what kind of strength training routine would i need eg. high/low weights, reps, how long? (keep in mind i'm a girl) currently i'm just using the machines in a sort of circuit kind of way and doing 8 reps with the heaviest weights i can manage.

Here's a list of strength training programs I found in the fitness forum FAQ, I suggest looking through it, finding a program you like, and sticking with it. Also, free weights (barbells, dumbbells) are much better than machines, since your muscles don't work in a fixed plane of motion.

Best of luck, and happy lifting!

Not dying is also a benefit of cardio - the Harvard alumni study showed that the people who did up to 140 minutes a week of vigorous cardio had significantly decreased risk of dying from heart troubles and other assorted nastiness.

 The people who did more than 140 minutes/week of cardio however, doubled their death risk as compared to the people who did a more reasonable level of exercise. Which isn't good, but when you know that the sedentary population had a 27 times higher death risk (CDC 2005 mortality data) than that it starts to not look so bad in comparison. 'course, the sub-140 cardio group gets a 54 times less mortality rate, so don't go overboard with the cardio either or you're halving your probable benefits.

 Also, note that strength training does count as activity, but I haven't seen any data one way or the other on longitudinal studies of lifespan of strength trainees. But strength training does mean higher bone mineral density and less chance of developing osteoporosis in later life, plus a heightened ability to stay self-sufficient and mobile, and an increased quality of life even when training begins in the 9th decade of life.

 So my best guess is that it's all important, and you should do a bit of everything - even if cardio doesn't help with fat loss. You're not going to be dieting all your life, and a narrow fat loss focus is kinda myopic.

subwaybusker, i think your point is totally valid.  i don't know your activity level, but i saw that you're a teenager in your profile.  most teenagers are pretty active during the day, running around w/friends, dancing and shopping and hopping to and from appointments and extracurricular activities.  if that's the case for you, you're absolutely right:  you don't need to do cardio to be fit or to lose weight, bec you're active enough that your heart gets a-pumpin regularly.

some ppl do cardio bec they want to run faster or be able to bike up steeper hills or have other athletic goals in mind.  but not everyone has those goals; and if you don't, there's no need for specific cardiovascular time.

you can always go for a walk if you feel like you've been lazy.  but if what you're seeking is a sweat-less weight loss program, it is possible.  you're awesome to be weight lifting (though that'll make you sweat too!), bec you'll look fabulous when the fat's gone and you're rock hard hot.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

besides cardiovascular fitness?  did you really ask that?

 ouch that was a bit harsh.

Now i'm afraid to ask a follow up....but i'll ask anyways.....

so if a person is looking for weight loss, it's best to follow a 1200 calorie diet (which would give me a 500 cal deficit a day) and follow a strength training/resistance training?  So my question is....does strength training really offer a substantial calorie burn?  I've worn my heart rate monitor while lifting and I was lucky to burn 50 calories....seems like cardio burns way more calories which would equal in a higher deficit? 

Am I totally confused now??
~H~

Depends on what you do when lifting, really - if you're not lifting heavy enough for your fitness level and you're doing a lot of small isolation exercises like shrugs and triceps kickbacks, you're not going to burn a whole lot calories. If you do it right - compound movements using the heaviest weights you can manage with good form, you're going to burn a lot more.

 Cardio has only weak or no correlation to fat loss (Strasser et.al.Ann Nutr Metab 2007;51:428-432 (DOI: 10.1159/000111162), there's no fat loss advantage to cardio over diet. Makes no difference whether you burn off 500 calories on the treadmill or you just don't eat them in the first place, the result is exactly the same. Except you get to eat more, and since I kinda like eating that's a definite plus in cardio's favour. And there's lots of health benefits to be had from cardio in general - it's just that fat loss isn't one of them.

 Strength training using heavy weights in the strength/hypertrophy range of 6-8 ot 8-12 reps will give you results like in this study. 15 minutes of strength training resulted in the study participants losing 10lbs of fat, and gained 2lbs of muslce while the women who did cardio for 30 minutes lost 3lbs of fat and 0.5 pounds of muscle.

 That's for untrained participants starting a training regime though - if you've got some training age on you, you're not likely to see the muscle gains in a calorie deficit, but the fat loss effects are still going to be orders of magnitude better from strength training.

 Though again, note that while cardio isn't much use in a narrow fat loss context, that doesn't mean it's useless, it improves a lot of health parameters that you'd want to pay attention to.

If you want to read even more details, check out Melkor Geeks Out: add your favourite study! :)

Original Post by haley_2008:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

besides cardiovascular fitness?  did you really ask that?

 ouch that was a bit harsh.

 

sorry if i seemed harsh, haley.  but weight loss without cardiovascular fitness is too cosmetic for me.  i'd rather actually be healthy than just look it.