Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LMAO. First, if you think those calorie counters are reliable, you're kidding yourself. Those are estimates at best that make far too many assumptions about the user. Two people could be the same height, age, weight and gender and do 30 minutes of jogging, but that doesn't mean they'll both necessarily burn the same number of calories. Second, no is denying that cardio burns more calories than weight lifting. But that's only DURING the session. The real benefit of weight lifting is the post-exercise boost in metabolism that can last as long as a few days for some people. With cardio, unless it's high intensity, the afterburn is minimal.
Allright. Finally someone is trying to make an intelligent post
I know about weight lifting's post exercise increase in metabolism.
But this has NOTHING to do with high rep vs. low rep. This is simply a matter of more muscle on your body helping to burn fat. And weight liftings effects on your nervous system.
Doing this high rep stuff will not make this happen any stronger. Explain how it does.
This is the point i'm making about weight lifting. Doing high reps just to burn fat is stupid. Just do a standard bodybuilding weightlifting routine and get better results. Build more muscle, burn the same amount of fat.
As you can see, the aerobic types of excercises burn more than double what the weight lifting excercises can. EVEN WALKING SLOWLY BURNS MORE CALORIES THAN GENERAL WEIGHT LIFTING AND SLIGHTLY LESS THAN VIGOROUS WEIGHT LIFTING.
Like I said. Using weight lifting to burn fat is taking the slow road.
Use your weight lifting routine for building muscle.
Those weightlifting numbers are just DURING the session. Yes, during the session weights don't burn as much, but lifting shocks your metabolism and you burn more calories after the session is over as well as opposed to normal aerobic work. This is also how HIIT works, and both are anaerobic activities.
I would argue that doing cardio, especially the LISS/aerobic cardio most people do, is not the most efficient way to lose weight. Taking myself as an example, even though I used to play lots of tennis at a competitive level, I still had a decent amount of pudge until I started lifting. After I started lifting, I immediately started seeing more muscle tone and was able to control my weight a lot more easily than pre-lifting.
In my mind, fat loss comes down to:
1. Diet: If you eat below maintenance, you'll lose weight. If you eat proper amounts of protein, control bad fats/carbs, you'll prevent muscle atrophy and maybe build muscle.
2. Genetics: Some people have a really hard time losing fat and naturally carry more fat on them.
3. Weight training: Helps you build muscle to increase basal metabolism, and, if you lift intensely, burns a lot of calories during AND AFTER the workout.
4. Cardio: Preferably, you should do HIIT, but cardio is still necessary to trim any additional calories and for good heart health.
But getting back to the central thesis of the thread: High reps for fat loss is complete garbage. If anything, you want to lift heavy, build lean muscle and make your fat loss more efficient than wasting time doing endless crunches, arm curls, etc. In addition, focusing on compound rather than isolation movements is better since your body has to work as a whole unit to move the larger weight. This helps for overall athleticism as well.
The bottom line. Weight lifting is good for working your muscles, not good for burning fat.
Cardio is good for buning fat, not good for building muscle.
There are countless examples of world class athletes whose results fly in the face of this.
There are speedskaters and cyclists who do no weight training at all ... look at the sizes of their thighs. Swimmers who do no resistance work with weights ... look at their shoulders and lats - especially some of the females. There are few athletes whose physiques can compete with gymnasts. Most gymnasts do no specific cardio or weight training.
There are very effective training regimens that blur the line of demarcation between cardio and resistance: high intensity circuit training routines that accomplish cardio with muscle blasting resistance ... just very little or no rest between sets and exercises.
For 95% of the population who just want to get fit and strong, separating cardio from resistance is old school and not the most effective use of limited training time.
As for high rep training, there are numerous studies that support both hypertrophic and hyperplasiac muscle gain for high repitition resistance training. The cardio benefit comes from higher repititions leading to a need for less rest between sets meaning your heart rate stays elevated, thus better cardio. The high rep training affects fat burn indirectly because the nature of the routine keeps your heart rate up throughout the session. If you sit around for 3-5 minutes between sets, you're right ... the potential benefit is not achieved.
Last edited by Fighting For Air; 09-17-2009 at 12:21 PM..
Allright. Finally someone is trying to make an intelligent post
I know about weight lifting's post exercise increase in metabolism.
But this has NOTHING to do with high rep vs. low rep. This is simply a matter of more muscle on your body helping to burn fat. And weight liftings effects on your nervous system.
Doing this high rep stuff will not make this happen any stronger. Explain how it does.
This is the point i'm making about weight lifting. Doing high reps just to burn fat is stupid. Just do a standard bodybuilding weightlifting routine and get better results. Build more muscle, burn the same amount of fat.
First off, are you suggesting that one can build muscle and burn fat at the same time? That's not realistic or possible for most people. Sure, you may hear stories about people who claim to be able to do both and there may be a small percentage of people out there who can. But for the average person, this isn't realistic. Gaining muscle requires taking in more calories than you're burning and losing fat requires taking in less calories than you're burning. So the goals of gaining muscle and burning fat are goals that work against one another.
Second, assuming your primary goal is to burn fat, then you have to be in a caloric deficit. The risk with that, however, is that you may lose muscle along with fat. Weight training does raise your metabolism and keep it elevated long after your exercise session is done and that helps to burn more body fat. But the main reason to include weight training in any fat loss plan is to MINIMIZE muscle loss. If you're lucky, you might not lose any and if you're really lucky, you might even gain a few pounds.
Third, rep ranges and rest periods need to be tailored according to your goals. People toss out the "do high reps to burn fat" line, but there's disagreement over how many reps to perform. The bottom line with muscle is that your body only wants to keep as much as it needs. Anything extra is excess and metabolically expensive. This is why a really high rep range (say 30 reps per set) is a waste of time. Lifting heavy is what gave you muscle in the first place. If you stop lifting heavy, why would your body want to keep that muscle, especially if you've cut calories? Now, if you ask 20 different people what rep ranges to use, you'll get 20 different answers. For me personally, when my goal is fat loss, I do 8-12 reps per set with about 60-90 seconds of rest between sets. If my goal is to gain muscle, I do 5-7 reps with about 2-3 minutes of rest between sets. This has always gotten me the results I wanted and it's where the "do high reps for fat loss, low reps for muscle gain" advice is correct. But it's a useless statement without quantifying what you call high rep and low rep. And a lot of it requires trial and error. But IMO, doing 30 reps a set is more like doing cardio. Think about if you had to pick up a bag of groceries off the floor over and over again. You might be able to do it 30 times before you needed to rest. But do you think you'd burn much fat or really jumpstart your metabolism much? I doubt it.
So when people say "do high reps to burn fat", what they should really be saying is "do high reps instead of low reps because you're not focusing on bulking up, but make sure the rep range is still low enough to convince your body to retain muscle."
I think the california bear assumes that everybody's goal is to be a bodybuilder. Not everybody wants to be a bodybuilder. Some people want to burn fat while gaining great conditioning for a sport or recreational activity they enjoy. I'm spending a lot of time doing 20-30 reps right now because I am getting more interested in trail racing. Have gained good strength and dropped fat without increasing my cardio levels yet, its all about the diet.
As for what constitutes high reps, there is no rule. There is also no set in stone rule as for where muscle building and strength gain cuts off for individuals, although I think it could be generally stated that most people see very little strength or muscle gain above 20 reps. That being said, I had a co-worker that used to load up 450 pounds on the hack squat machine and do 4 sets of 50 reps. He deadlifted 225 for sets of 30-40, and incline benched 185 for 40 reps. He was one of the strongest people I have ever known. He competed in powerlifting from time to time and would occasionally enter a bodybuilding contest. High reps worked great for both strength and fat loss for him.
Me thinks Californiabear goes to sleep at night wearing his Flex tshirt while snuggling up with a stack of Flex magazines, lol.
I think the california bear assumes that everybody's goal is to be a bodybuilder. Not everybody wants to be a bodybuilder. Some people want to burn fat while gaining great conditioning for a sport or recreational activity they enjoy. I'm spending a lot of time doing 20-30 reps right now because I am getting more interested in trail racing. Have gained good strength and dropped fat without increasing my cardio levels yet, its all about the diet.
As for what constitutes high reps, there is no rule. There is also no set in stone rule as for where muscle building and strength gain cuts off for individuals, although I think it could be generally stated that most people see very little strength or muscle gain above 20 reps. That being said, I had a co-worker that used to load up 450 pounds on the hack squat machine and do 4 sets of 50 reps. He deadlifted 225 for sets of 30-40, and incline benched 185 for 40 reps. He was one of the strongest people I have ever known. He competed in powerlifting from time to time and would occasionally enter a bodybuilding contest. High reps worked great for both strength and fat loss for him.
Me thinks Californiabear goes to sleep at night wearing his Flex tshirt while snuggling up with a stack of Flex magazines, lol.
Nope. I'm more of a bicyclist/outdoor sports guy. I'm not even trying to be bulky. I am all about having a rock hard fitness model kind of build though and i've achieved that already.
Although 10 years ago, I was definitely in that bodybuilding mindset, i'm not anymore. But being in the bodybuilding wold definitely taught me the best ways to burn fat fast and build muscle fast. Because that's basically what bodybuilders do best.
Like you said, really high reps ranges are great for conditioning for sports. That is their main benefit. But the metabolic effects won't be any greater than lifitng in the low rep ranges. And if you are going over 20 reps, this is not very efffective for changing body composition.
As for stories about individuals who achieved great results with X excercise routines and Y rep ranges etc. Lots of this comes down to genetics. Some guys can get great results in jail cells doing push ups and sit ups all day, just because they have the genetics. But that does not mean that this is the BEST way.
I know a kid who is 15 years old. Who just started lifting weight s a few months ago but he already has muscles like a gorrilla. Simply becasue of his genetics.
I also know people who break thir necks in the gym for years and all you see is their muscles toning up lightly, and that's it.
As for Olympic athletes. The fact is, almost all of them have taken steroids to some degree and take steroids when they can get away with it. Sure, they clean up for tests and they go through long times off between steroid cycles. But they are definitely juicing when they can. And there are lots of exotic steroids they use which do not show up on drug tests.
Do not underestimate how much professional athletes use steroids. The average person would be shocked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
