Cons to low resistance workout

redout

Hi,

Could someone please explain the cons to low resistance as opposed to high resistance. Doing a workout on a machine with a low resistance set seems to burn more calories according to the monitor. I am a bit confused about the whole thing. I use to workout regularly on level 6 of 8 and then switched to level 3 of 8 and found it seems to burn more calories although the effort seems lower you obviously do more rpms etc but I presume that their must be a downside to this. The main aim here is weight loss first. Any help appreciated.

rubadub

I have said before

Say you lift 3 times a week, 60mins. Now say you burn 400kcal in those sessions. All during the week your body is trying to build new muscle, this means it uses calories!, even when sitting around the next day you are using calories to build muscle. AND you need more calories just to maintain this new muscle. You can sort of compare it to being pregnant, you need more caloires to "build" the new tissue- i.e. the baby. Then just to keep the bump/muscles warm and alive it takes more calories. Also muscle needs more calories to maintain it than fat. So a muscular 15stone man lying in bed needs more calories than a 15stone fat man.

Low resistance work is more like cardio, over 15+ reps is like endurance training. Though I have seen big guys who are meant to only do bodyweight exercise in what is low resistance for them. But they are doing massive volume, crazy amounts.

redout

rubadub wrote: »

I have said before


Low resistance work is more like cardio, over 15+ reps is like endurance training. Though I have seen big guys who are meant to only do bodyweight exercise in what is low resistance for them. But they are doing massive volume, crazy amounts.

So are saying low resistance on a bike etc. is useless and should be using a high resistance then to lose weight. I am not looking to build muscle until the weight is gone.

rubadub

redout wrote: »

So are saying low resistance on a bike etc. is useless.

Not at all. I am just saying it is more like cardio and explaining the difference. You could spend 60mins in the gym, twice a week. You could burn 500kcal per hour on a bike and only 300kcal per hour on weights. But overall during the course of the week you could actually expend more additional calories due to the weights causing you to build muscle, which requires calories.

If you increase your overall mass with muscle your metabolism is raised, so if you are fond of your food & drink like me I would rather be my current 80kg with a extra muscle, than be 70kg and have a lower metabolism. I can get away with eating and drinking more due to the added mass.

redout wrote: »

I am not looking to build muscle until the weight is gone.

I see no reason to do this. If you are overweight some of that weight is already muscle, needed to carry your excess bulk, you are in effect already weight training. If you are on a calorie deficit you will find it hard to put on muscle, if you manage to put on any. But doing resistance training in lower rep ranges will at least maintain the muscle you already have. If you do just cardio you risk losing this muscle. As you get lighter your legs have to carry less so would naturally lose muscle mass if not given adequate resistance.

If on a calorie deficit doing just cardio you risk losing muscle, I see no point in dropping fat to reveal a scrawny body and then try building it up again. I remained around 12stone for about a year, losing fat and building muscle at the same rate. I am now just under 13stone.

Best combine the 2, I lost weight gradually, cycling ~60mins a day for a long time, commuting. Then did 3 full body workouts a week. I now am still cycling 45mins mon-friday. With short intense weights workouts. Many will do cardio & weights on different days. Best do your weights before cardio on the same day if you must, as you have more energy to lift the wieghts. You could do a short warmup before the wieghts, I prefer doing light weight reps of the exercise as a warmup.

PS- what is your diet like, that is very important when trying to drop weight.

corkcomp

no offence rubadub but I think the OP was asking specifically about the resistance levels on cardio machines rather than the pros / cons + weights vs cardio argument!! Any workout done on a bike will be cardio no matter what the resistance is set to..

If you use a high resistance on the bike / cross trainer etc you will only be able to go at a slower pace whereas the easier resistance makes for faster revolutions ... I have tried both and found its a good idea to vary the resistance ever few minutes just to shock the body and prevent boredom .. I dont think one is better than the other, my heart rate is around the same whether im going flat out on a low resistance or slower with the resistance set high ....

rubadub

corkcomp wrote: »

no offence rubadub but I think the OP was asking specifically about the resistance levels on cardio machines rather than the pros / cons + weights vs cardio argument!!

None taken, my (big) mistake

Sorry redout, I speeded over reading it, and thought it was weight machines. I would still recommend lifting for weight loss too in addition to your cardio, but stick to free weights and not machines, (should have also mentioned that!, not on the ball today )

redout

I have been told minute for minute high resistance training will burn more calories as your body is working harder which sounds right but the confusing thing is the machines monitor will tell you the opposite.

Whatever, its all confusing so I reckon its just better to stick to a high resistace rather than a low.