Are weights really better than treadmill for losing weight?

Glacier

Is doing weights really more efective than using a treadmill for losing weight? Can you lose weight and bulk up at the same time? I want to drop about a stone & 1/2, how long would it take before you notice a difference?

Boru.

In order to burn 1 lb pf fat you need to use 3500 kcals. If you were to do that using moderate aerobics (like the three hours spent in the gym on every cardio machine - just to quickly point out it couldn't have been very intense - your body physiologically can not maintain maximum intensity for sustained periods of times like the 3 hours above, anyways back to the point) like a treadmill, bike etc, you'd need to spend about 11 hours a week doing that.

However if you start lifting weights, and not silly light weights either, you can lift pretty heavy, you will develop strong hard and firm (read not huge) lean muscle tissue. This will increase the number of calories you burn by just walking around or lying in bed doing nothing. Not only that it will enhance your physique and define and firm key trouble areas. But here's the really cool part - if over the next year, you added just 10lbs of lean muscle you would burn off on average an extra 1000kcals a day - that's 7,000 kcals for doing nothing. Which would be the equivalent of 2lbs of fat a week - that's not even exercising that's just to keep you the way you are.

So start lifting weights and doing less cardio. Cardio should only be for around 10-15 mins at most and I recommend High Intensity Interval Training - this encourages your body to store sugar as opposed to fat and really speeds up weight loss.

You can lose weight and increase your lean muscle tissue at the same time. Personally I am not a fan of "bulking", all too often it's seen as an opportunity to eat way too much food and get fat. Personally I recommend eating slightly above maintenance and training hard.

As regards to how long it will take to see a difference, at a steady state of fat loss, say 2lbs a week you can expect to hit your goal in about 11 weeks. As for how long it will take to see a difference, that depends on subjective observation and perception and far more variables than have been provided. In all likely hood you probably won't notice the differences as they are gradual and small - then you meet someone who hasn't seen you in a month and they are shocked by how much you have changed. Take photos, measure your clothes and don't look at scale any more than 4 weeks apart.

Hope that helps

rubadub

Boru. wrote: »

But here's the really cool part - if over the next year, you added just 10lbs of lean muscle you would burn off on average an extra 1000kcals a day -

Have you any links about this. I saw you mention it in another post. I know figures are alll approximates, but I had heard before it was ~35kcal per lb you put on, while yours is 100kcal per lb. It just sounds a fair amount.

FloatingAngel

Hi Boru,

That way wouldn't be the way to go for girls? would the excerise bike and the rower or something be best for girls? im not really sure how to go about burning fat of and toning up at the same time????

rubadub

FloatingAngel wrote: »

That way wouldn't be the way to go for girls?

It is a great way, male or female. When you see a woman you consider "toned", it is a combination of low bodyfat and some muscle development. I am not talking bodybuilding women, I am talking when you see athletes or models on ads for fitness equipment- they are all doing some resistance training to get "toned"

You will not get "too muscley", many men are trying to get big and have difficulty, women with lower testosterone etc have a harder time putting on muscle. Bodybuilding women are on steroids and training hours a day. If you ever did get "too big" you simply stop lifting and the muscles reduce in size. And getting "big" does not happen overnight!

And no pink dumbells! proper weights heavy enough so you can only do 8-12repetitions is best for muscle growth.

When starting out you can use your own bodyweight, do pushups and bodysquats. If you cannot manage many pushups then lean against a wall and do them, choose an angle where you can only manage 8-12, take a break for 1-2mins, and do another 2 rounds of 8-12.

Do body squats, if you can do more than 12 in a row, then hold some books or a bottle of water. Once these are all too easy it is time to think of buying some proper weights, or get a chinup bar. I much prefer training with only my bodyweight and I know many women are averse to the idea of weights, which is a pity, since some reckon weight training is even more beneficial to women than men.

Have a look here http://www.simplefit.org/

FloatingAngel

Really i never would have thought that this would be the way to go!! ill give it a try just have to invest in a door bar thing!!!! thanks a million...

rubadub

FloatingAngel wrote: »

Really i never would have thought that this would be the way to go!! ill give it a try just have to invest in a door bar thing!!!! thanks a million...

Chinups and pullups are pretty hard to do, you need a lot of upper body strength, and I think they may be difficult for women. You can start out with pushups and bodysquats like I mentioned. Some of the female posters might comment if they have chinning bars. I know most lads who get them struggle at first.

You can get push up handles which I like
http://www.argos.ie/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=30001&langId=-1&catalogId=1500001101&productId=1500194577&clickfrom=name

These make it easier on your wrists, and also allow you to do deep pushups which work you more.

Dips can be done using 2 chairs. But these are also hard to do at first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5JbaPbfWUg

easier version

If getting weights get proper cast iron ones. these are good
http://www.argos.ie/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=30001&langId=-1&catalogId=1500001101&productId=1500215057&clickfrom=name

this place will deliver cheap enough too. http://irish-lifting.com/product_info_equipment.php?cPath=1_15&products_id=260

The argos one is 50kg, so it would take a few trips to get it out and into a car. 50kg is quite a bit, a tray of 24x500ml cans of beer is around 12.5kg if you want a comparison, so 4 crates of beer.

The pink "ladies" dumbells you see not worth a damn, you could use family size tins of beans instead. But starting out you will not manage much wieght, but improve quickly. In which case you can start right away, using books or tools around the house. You can put books in a backpack and do squats.

FloatingAngel

rubadub wrote: »

Chinups and pullups are pretty hard to do, you need a lot of upper body strength, and I think they may be difficult for women. You can start out with pushups and bodysquats like I mentioned. Some of the female posters might comment if they have chinning bars. I know most lads who get them struggle at first.

You can get push up handles which I like
http://www.argos.ie/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=30001&langId=-1&catalogId=1500001101&productId=1500194577&clickfrom=name

These make it easier on your wrists, and also allow you to do deep pushups which work you more.

Dips can be done using 2 chairs. But these are also hard to do at first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5JbaPbfWUg

easier version

If getting weights get proper cast iron ones. these are good
http://www.argos.ie/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=30001&langId=-1&catalogId=1500001101&productId=1500215057&clickfrom=name

this place will deliver cheap enough too. http://irish-lifting.com/product_info_equipment.php?cPath=1_15&products_id=260

The argos one is 50kg, so it would take a few trips to get it out and into a car. 50kg is quite a bit, a tray of 24x500ml cans of beer is around 12.5kg if you want a comparison, so 4 crates of beer.

The pink "ladies" dumbells you see not worth a damn, you could use family size tins of beans instead. But starting out you will not manage much wieght, but improve quickly. In which case you can start right away, using books or tools around the house. You can put books in a backpack and do squats.

Ok well my brother has weights at home, there not the cast iron ones tho there Vinyl ones. ill see how i get on with them at first and then buy the ones u suggest. i have no weights bench so i prob won't be able to buy the large one.

So i will just use the weights before i do any other exercises??
Sorry for annoying u btw!!!

rubadub

FloatingAngel wrote: »

Ok well my brother has weights at home, there not the cast iron ones tho there Vinyl ones. ill see how i get on with them at first and then buy the ones u suggest. i have no weights bench so i prob won't be able to buy the large one.

So i will just use the weights before i do any other exercises??
Sorry for annoying u btw!!!

Just use the brothers so, that is fine. The cast iron ones will just last longer, the vinyl ones are full of cement which degrade over time, but use them if you already have them. I have a bench but do not use it, I do dips and pushups to work my chest. The bigger bar can be used for squats and deadlifts, but you can do them with the dumbells for the time being. You can buy spare plates separately when you get stronger, or just a bar.

this is a great site too

http://www.exrx.net/Beginning.html

jph100

Boru. wrote: »

So start lifting weights and doing less cardio.

why shud less cardio be done? i would have thought it would help fat loss?

thanks

Colm_OReilly

The vast majority of people when doing cardio do it at so low an intensity as to stop reaping beneifts from it very quickly.

Your body adapts to cardiorespiratory stress within a couple of workouts. After that you're just maintaining at best, or reducing your lean muscle gains from your resistance training at worst.

The whole notion of 15 minutes on the bike, 15 minutes on the rower, 15 minutes on the stepper, etc is given out because it's easy. But unfortunately success isn't easy. Without intensity (and this is defined as power output - how heavy, how far, how fast) your response is somewhat blunted.

Now, if you're regularly trying out a 2k, 5k or 10k run timed, a 15k or 20K cycle timed, 2K or 500m intervals on the rower, or sprint workouts where you are actively pushing yourself each time, then you're receiving a far greater benefit than simply hoping on the recumbant bike for 20 minutes while you read NOW.

Hope this helps,
Colm

rubadub

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

Your body adapts to cardiorespiratory stress within a couple of workouts.

What do you reckon the best method is commuting on a bike? My journey is around 25-30mins. I read in burn the fat feed the muscle that a steady pace is better, and hence saying a gym bike is better than a real bike since there are no breaks.

But what is better, I can "read the lights" and pace myself accordingly, never really having to stop. Or I can go all out, and have to stop at lights and catch my breath. I feel I have done more when I go all out.

Colm_OReilly

rubadub wrote: »

What do you reckon the best method is commuting on a bike? My journey is around 25-30mins. I read in burn the fat feed the muscle that a steady pace is better, and hence saying a gym bike is better than a real bike since there are no breaks.

But what is better, I can "read the lights" and pace myself accordingly, never really having to stop. Or I can go all out, and have to stop at lights and catch my breath. I feel I have done more when I go all out.

My commute is about the same and tbh I don't think of it as part of my exercise, I just cycle along, debating esoteric points in my head and listen to my iPod.

However, in the spirit of throwing out suggestions - a ex cyclist friend of mine suggested dropping the gears down so you are spinning more. So that's one way of working hard, increasing your cadence while maintaining speed.

Another way could be to pick certain landmarks (like the next set of lights 1km away) and record your times on them. If the lights are red, stop and take a breather. If they're green, cycle on through and take it as active recovery, then time trial yourself on the next interval.

Have you a speedometer? I'd say the simple fact of timing yourself and looking to beat that would help.

Like I said, just throwing out suggestions. Try them and let me know how you get on.

rubadub

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

However, in the spirit of throwing out suggestions - a ex cyclist friend of mine suggested dropping the gears down so you are spinning more. So that's one way of working hard, increasing your cadence while maintaining speed..

Yes, it is easier on the knees too. I have switched from my hybrid to mountain bike lately. I still try to keep up the same speed I am used to so exert a lot more energy, the slower bike is safer too, and safer since it has suspension for all the dodgy roads, more fun too.

I did have a speedo, now I just race against other cyclists, try and catch up with them I was getting too fast, and it was scary sometimes, the MTB has brought me right down a level again which is nice.

Boru.

rubadub wrote: »

Have you any links about this. I saw you mention it in another post. I know figures are alll approximates, but I had heard before it was ~35kcal per lb you put on, while yours is 100kcal per lb. It just sounds a fair amount.

I'm afraid the specific journal I referenced that from is with one of my trainers so I don't have it to hand - but I'll try and get it back in the next day or 2 and pm with you the details. It was I see to recall based on BSM rates.

Incidentally I also have a number of studies that show muscle kcal consumption per day ranging form 6kcal - 125kcal. As always for every argument proven by studies another 10 prove it the other way. :rolleyes:

FloatingAngel although rubadub already answered it - yes the exact same advice applies to girls - even more so becasue resistence training substantially decreases the risk of osteoperosis and arthritis, two very common developing condtions post menopause.

jph100 wrote:

why shud less cardio be done? i would have thought it would help fat loss?

jph100 - this is a very common misconception even on this board. It results from missuse of certain common terms. There are 3 primary forms of training, they are very basically:

1. Resistance based (E.g. Weight Lifting) - builds lean muscle tissue
2. Aerobic based (E.g. Walking)- steady state low intensity activity primarily used to burn fat
3. Cardio based (E.g. HIIT)- used to imporve heart rate and oxygen uptake.

All three have different methods for attaining those goals and often are diametrically oppossed. As such if you want to build muscle, which as explained burns fat over a greater period of time with less work and a host of other benefits use resistence training.

Cardio conditioning interfers with the muscle building process. Thus my recomednation to limit cardio activity and concentrae on resistence exercsie. Best health and weight loss return on time invested.

Colm_OReilly wrote:

The vast majority of people when doing cardio do it at so low an intensity as to stop reaping beneifts from it very quickly.

An example of the above misconception. Cardio cannot be perfromed in a low intensity state.

yabadabado

guys just wondering about cycling -which is better going fast on a low resistance or slow on a high resistance or is there a better way like switching back in forth for 5mins at time or something like that.when i bought an exercise bike a few months ago i timed my self the first few nights went till i was wrecked and once i started to notice an improvement i started to add more distance and time.im still doin this -is it correct?

Colm_OReilly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm_OReilly
The vast majority of people when doing cardio do it at so low an intensity as to stop reaping beneifts from it very quickly.

An example of the above misconception. Cardio cannot be perfromed in a low intensity state.

The one time I don't throw in a quotation mark! We both see hundreds of people sitting on a recumbant bike for twenty minutes sipping powerade reading Now and that's their "cardio"

I'd disagree with your definitions of the types of training as well. Where does a Cindy workout fit into that definition, or a heavy Fran? Is it cardio or resistance?

Of course, I'm making the inference from your post that these are mutually exclusive.

yabadabadoo, what are you aims?

Boru.

They may well call that "cardio" - but it isn't. It's aerobic.

As for my definitions, while you may agree or disagree with them, they are the current medical and scientific definitions. Feel free to use your own terminology, but I'll stick with the recognized terms for sake of clarity thanks.

And yes they are mutually exclusive with simple defined boundries that make it quite clear, what is and is not aerobic, resistance and cardio training. Combiation training, say resistence training that's designed to produce an cardio benefit is inefficent in comparrsion to specific training for a specific adaptive response, not that it too doesn't have it's place.

In regards to your question - Cindy is primarily aerobic. A heavy Fran would be a poor mix of resistence and cardio though I'd say it's primarily cardio - as it's certainly not adequate resistence training becasue it's a submaximal load.

hot fuss

Just wondering how many weights sessions would you recommend a week if you're looking to lose weight at a healthy rate? I'm female by the way..

At the moment I'm doing one cardio class a week, playing squash once a week and doing two weight training sessions in the gym a week. Do you think I should increase the weights sessions? I'm also cycling about 30/40 miles a week but this is just commuting, not hard core..

It was actually the instructor I have for the cardio class who encouraged me to do weights in the gym instead of cardio.. She said exactly what you guys who sound like you know what you're talking about said, that when she trains people (she's a personal trainer too) she gets them to do mostly weight training if they're looking to shed the pounds..

I've been doing the programme she gave me since she recommended it but just wondering if I should up the workload!

Thanks

Colm_OReilly

hot fuss,

To give broad advise, you should increase your workload until you start to regress. This might be in the form of feeling tired going into workouts and coming out, not able to lift as much/run as far or as fast, build up of niggling injuries etc. Then decrease by one sesion. But, like I said, broad general advice.

Boru,

Owing to the lack of tone of the internet I cannot tell if you're joking with Cindy being aerobic, so I'll take it as a legitimate response. Cindy is in no way a "low intensity activity"! However, if you were joking, my point isn't necessary.

As to Fran, what's a better mix? To say it's submaximal is athlete dependent, as you'd need to know their max strength on pull ups and thrusters.

I understand and agree with your point on specificity, but to maximise adaptation across a broad range of physical attributes, one needs to accept suboptimal adaptation in any one aspect. Hence we don't have humans with 2:10 marathons and 500lb deadlifts.

Thanks,
Colm

Dragan

Boru. wrote: »

In regards to your question - Cindy is primarily aerobic. A heavy Fran would be a poor mix of resistence and cardio though I'd say it's primarily cardio - as it's certainly not adequate resistence training becasue it's a submaximal load.

With all due respect Boru, i'd much rather spend my time knocking out a good Fran than doing a ridiculous weight for no range of movement.

Thats just me.

Boru.

hot fuss, Colm's advice is spot on.

Colm, yes I was joking, hence the emoticon.

As regarding Fran's I'm not interested in debating crossfit. It's another tool in the fitness box that can be used and is very enjoyable. However the simple fact is it is a sub maximal workout becasue the weight can be lifted multiple times. Thus it is not the maximum that can be lifted, thus it does not provide maximal stimulation and is less efficent. That isn't to say it does not work, nor that people don't enjoy it, but it is submaximal stimulation.

I agree with your point regarding maximising adaptation and thus compromise exists. All I am saying is that it is no reason to compromise training methods. Why make the case worse than it has to be? Why not train in the most efficent manner for each aspect and achieve the best possible compromise, rather than compromising the training and thus greater degrading the results achieveable?

This is just semantics however and in real world application it really doesn't matter save for individual prefference.

For my money, I train to live, not live to train. I train in the safest and most time efficent manner possible. That's all. Most people on this board would find it boring as hell and that's fine. I find most methods incourages increased risk of illness and injury and I persoanlly don't see a benefit in that.

Dragon - exactly. Good for you. You're you, I'm me. Two different goals, training methodologies and philosphies. However it doesn't change the defitinitions of resistence, aerobic or cardio or for that matter the optimal training methods for developing each.

Incidentally ridiculous weight and no range have little to do with this. You know I don't talk about my methods publically on this forum, so I see no need to bring it up here. I've made no statement as to which method serves these best, simply stated the distinction between the 3 training systems, which no one has disagreed with.

Keep in mind I've trained your way, I've trained crossfit, I've trained with progressive overload, DC etc. I continue to train in different methods and test. But you've never trained my way, (nor do you ever have to in order to reach your goals).

Colm_OReilly

Now I'm confused.

If you say this

I'm not interested in debating crossfit.

but then this...

Why not train in the most efficent manner for each aspect and achieve the best possible compromise, rather than compromising the training and thus greater degrading the results achieveable?

This to me, maximising adaptation across broad time and modal domains (or components of fitness) is our aim. This point suggests that there is a more effective/efficient method of achieving this.

The rest of your post alludes to your training methods without mentioning them. If your training methods have provided an increase in perfromance metrics across different fitness tests I'd love to hear about them, as I imagine would most.

Thanks,
Col

Hanley

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

Now I'm confused.

If you say this
but then this...

This to me, maximising adaptation across broad time and modal domains (or components of fitness) is our aim. This point suggests that there is a more effective/efficient method of achieving this.

The rest of your post alludes to your training methods without mentioning them. If your training methods have provided an increase in perfromance metrics across different fitness tests I'd love to hear about them, as I imagine would most.

Thanks,
Col

He catches ALOT of flak any time he's discussed his methods, so I imagine he's just given up on trying to convince people what he's doing is worthwhile. I guess it's understandable enough? If I was being shot down and slagged any time I posted my methods I'd quickly get sick of it too.

I went and had a look for "Fran". If it's actually just 21-15-9 with thrusters and pullups then I don't see how anyone can disagree with Boru when he says it's a poor mix of resistance and cardio. If anything it's really just cardio...

Boru.

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

Now I'm confused.

If you say this
but then this...

This to me, maximising adaptation across broad time and modal domains (or components of fitness) is our aim. This point suggests that there is a more effective/efficient method of achieving this.

The rest of your post alludes to your training methods without mentioning them. If your training methods have provided an increase in perfromance metrics across different fitness tests I'd love to hear about them, as I imagine would most.

Thanks,
Col

Hanley pretty much summed this up for me. Thanks.

I'm not interested in debating on crossfit becasue at the end of the day it's a matter of personal preference and enjoyment as perviously stated.

It produce's results and people enjoy doing it. It does not produce those results in the most time effective or safest manner possible. I think that can be fairly obvously deduced, however it's a fun and enjoyable activity, so who really cares. Certainly not me.

As for the rest of my post reagrding my training methods - I didn't bring it up. In fact I NEVER bring it up. Dragon did in this case. If you are genuinely interested in my methods you can contact me privately to discuss it.