I'm not about to start a debate as to whether cardio or strength training is more effective for weight loss.

I'm a running-freak myself and don't know that much about strength-training - probably because back in my day when I needed to slim down and shape up and caught the fitness-bug, weight-training wasn't really mainstream yet so it wasn't an option. I'm in no way adverse to pumping iron though - on the contrary, I love the trend with muscular women on magazine covers - but I've been surprised to say the least about some of the most ambitious claims you read about in the muscle- and body-building articles.

To cut a long story short, here's a good read on the subject - albeit written by a long time running-expert. Judge for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, 'whatever floats your boat' is the best rule when it comes to exercise.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304--7753-0,00.html

Wow, thanks Mary. I really like that website because I wanted to get back into running again. I used to run in collage, but that was years ago. I'm walking now because I'm still to heavy to run, but that website is a good place for me to go for information about running.

I really don't know which is better, but I am doing both. I really enjoyed lifting weights when I was younger and have finally gotten my weights from the attic and have been lifting for a few months now. I don't know why I love it so much, but I still do.

I agree that whatever works for you is the best. Weights or running or a combination of both. Both activities get the heart pumping.

My (very un-educated) guess would be that it's probably best to do both - and to throw in some stretching/yoga/pilates-moves for flexibility too...

One pretty funny thing I've noticed is that the muscle-people sort of reluctantly agree that 'cardio' is necessary and tell you to hit the treadmill when you're finished with the weights - and the running-folks sort of reluctantly agree that doing 'weights' is necessary and tell you to do them when you are finished with your running-session... so go figure!

If you're into running though I'd say that you can trust Runnersworld, they are probably the best established and respected resource around today - and they've been on the scene for a very long time and aren't likely to jump on every fad-wagon (there's a UK-version too, and paper-mag editions in most Western countries).

The way I see it is that form follows function.

Spending a couple of hours each day on aerobic activities at the lactic threshold (not in the wimpy fat burning zone which is kind of a misnomer) will burn a lot of calories. However, if a person stops this exercise regime the new diet needs to reflect a low muscle, low fat person. These diets are very hard to control, because one can not eat very many calories and at the same time one must be sure that the diet is balanced in terms of vitamins, etc.

Conversely, if muscles are built, the resting metabolism increases to match the current diet. This will replace fat with muscle. For a fat person, more fat will be dropped than muscle is created and the person will lose weight. For a skinny person, more muscle will be created than fat dropped (subject to diet restrictions) and the person will gain weight. This way is more stable though as muscles are not lost as quickly as an exercise regime is stopped.

Aside from raising basic metabolism, the after burn is probably just as important. High intensity exercise microdamages muscle tissue. This takes energy to repair. My (fat/inactive) wife often notice that my body is literally hot. I can sit in a t-shirt, while she needs to sit in a sweater under a blanket. Aerobics does not have afterburn.

Muscles can be compared to passive investments that throw off money even while one is not working, whereas aerobics can be compared to work. No work, no money.

Hi Jake, and welcome!

Like I said, I'm not about to argue with the strength-folks, that's an area I know nothing about.

One thing that has been worrying me though (and this is in no way an argument against your views), is that the 'trend-pendulum' in cardio is now swinging from low-intensity to high-intensity, and everybody are raving about the Tabata-protocol.

I'll try to keep it brief - and keep in mind that I don't have any formal credentials.

First of all, the low-intensity fat-burning zone was a fad, it doesn't work. But the problem is, there is no universal 'zone' that is low-intensity vs high-intensity for everybody. For the semi-sedentary average and somewhat overweight person, who is new to exercise, a brisk walk is in fact not 'low-intensity' but probably moderate or even fairly high-intensity. Then again for example, for me personally, running at 6 min/km speed is moderate intensity, but for a young and very fit man or woman who is a regular runner my moderate intensity speed would be very low intensity.

My lactate-threshold sets in at about 5-5:15 min / km speed and I can keep going for about 45 mins max at that speed and then I puke and die, but for a 'better' runner this would still be low-intensity and they could do a marathon at that speed, and so on and on and on....

For me at the age of 45 and being fairly fit (and I've been running for about 15 years, so my body - joints, knees, back - is used to it and can handle the strain), it is safe to do 'high-intensity´ cardio (ie lactate-threshold runs and/or 'Tabata-protocol' - intervals) twice a week, the rest of my runs have to be low- to moderate intensity or I'd end up with burnout and injury.

So what I'm trying to say is that in order to stay healthy and avoid injury it might not be a good idea to do each and every cardio-session at an intensity that is at the lactate-threshold or over it, even though it might be the most effective way to burn fat.

I suspect the fat burning zone as defined on those machines were more a marketing gimmick. It would be discouraging to out of shape people who usually want to burn fat rather than get in shape if the most optimal zone on the treadmill felt too brutal.

The problem is as you say that as people get fitter, the fat burning zone is no longer a good zone to be in. If I was the designer of cardio machines, I would label the zones "sedentary, beginner, normal, advanced, elite" --- I would probably not sell a lot of units that way though.


Tabata or something Tabata-like is most likely the optimal course. For strength I do high intensity intervals and crossfit style workouts. They don't take long.

Rather than worry about the details I think it is more important to find something that the person enjoys and will stick with and go all out on rather than something that is merely the means to an end.

QUOTE:
Rather than worry about the details I think it is more important to find something that the person enjoys and will stick with and go all out on rather than something that is merely the means to an end.

All I can say to that is Amen, brother!

We do not have any of our clients do aerobics or running of any kind. The focus is entirely on strength training, for a few reasons.

First, and most important, to maintain muscle while fat is lost. Often, if someone diets or does a lot of low-intensity activity or cardio but no strength training, they lose weight indiscriminately - fat and muscle. And less muscle means a lower metabolic rate.

Second, a few pounds increase in muscle mass can make a big difference in metabolic rate, and most people who have never done proper strength training (not the way too easy stuff most people do in the gym) will gain several pounds of muscle over the first few weeks.

Third, strength training can produce the same cardiovascular benefits as popular aerobic activities, but is less damaging to the joints over time. Some methods of strength training can produce even better improvements in cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning.

The first photo in the following post was taken after having done no running, no cardio machines, or anything of the sort for about two years. My exercise regimen consisted of at most two brief strength training workouts per week.
http://baye.com/ripped-abs/

They biggest factor was diet. The contribution of an exercise program to fat loss is miniscule compared to the role of diet. No matter what a person does for exercise, if they're not restricting their calorie intake, they're not going to lose much fat.

QUOTE:
They biggest factor was diet. The contribution of an exercise program to fat loss is miniscule compared to the role of diet. No matter what a person does for exercise, if they're not restricting their calorie intake, they're not going to lose much fat.

Agreed, the way I've heard it said is that exercise is of very little help in losing weight, but it's abdolutely essential for maintaining a healthy weight.

One thing though - and I don't know if you've looked into this - from what I understand some researchers are now claiming that visceral/internal fat will not shift with diet alone, and the only way to lose it is through exercise (strength or cardio, probably doesn't matter much which).

I have not heard that about visceral fat. If you have any references or articles on it I'd like to read them.