The cardio vs. weights debate V2.0 How does it affect diet/ appetite?

Jerrica

There's a rake of articles popping up on my news feed today reigniting the cardio vs. weights debate that I've long battled with academically and am now facing in my own "look good(ish) nekkid" attempts. Articles like Your Cardio Makes No Sense from T-Nation (I was once featured in their weekly round up photos, those were the days...) and Why Women Should Not Run, originally featured on EliteFTS.

Back when I was lifting (it won't take you long to figure out who I am. If not, hai n00b o/) I was one of, if not THE, strongest proponents of women's lifting on the forum. I read all the articles, I researched the science, I scoffed at cardio bunnies on treadmills. I was at my heaviest when I lifted and I was also at my lightest (84kg vs 67kg). The big difference in the two bodyweights was, needless to say, diet but at my lightest (when I did a mini cut - 8 weeks of hell for two days of a sixpack) I was also doing a lot of steady state cardio.

Anyhoo, fast forward a few years, I retire from competition and I do little or no exercise. Mental break needed. Laziness ensued, I put on weight. No biggie, I started to exercise again. But this time I wanted something easy, like really easy to accommodate in my life. I went to Amphibian King, bought an outrageously expensive pair of trainer and I downloaded the C25K app. Three months later I ran my first 5K race, two months ago I hit the 10k mark for the first time. I'm only 2k heavier than I was at my lightest and I feel just as good as I did when I lifted, I just can't squat >100kg anymore

Forget the science about T3 levels, forget the increase in metabolic whatsit, ignore toning and squatters ass and all that jazz there is one, literally one singular feature that makes cardio a better option for me for weight loss: my appetite. I can run at lunchtime or later and it has no effect on my appetite. If I run first thing in the morning I will see an increase in hunger late in the evening.

If I lift (tentatively back doing bits and pieces, also do kettlebells count as lifting?) I am ravenous for at least 24 if not 48 hours afterwards. I mean two-bags-of-microwave-popcorn, half a bag of oranges and a slice or three of homemade pizza as a snack ravenous. And that makes it so much easier for me to stay on target weight wise when I do cardio and I will actively choose it over weights.

So, is this something that anyone else notices in clients or feels themselves? It's the one thing that I haven't seen addressed in the articles but I don't think I'm making it up. It's real for me anyway. Is it just down to bad training (entirely a possibility)?

We know that 80% of looking good is down to diet but is there a very real effect on how cardio vs weights will affect that diet in the 23 hours a day you're not actively burning calories through exercise?

discus

Jerrica wrote: »

We know that 80% of looking good is down to diet but is there a very real effect on how cardio vs weights will affect that diet in the 23 hours a day you're not actively burning calories through exercise?

That's a really interesting point. For the past while it has been all about creating bigger muscles, using the 'but bigger muscles use more kcals just to exist' line to justify weights over cardio.

So, is this something that anyone else notices in clients or feels themselves? It's the one thing that I haven't seen addressed in the articles but I don't think I'm making it up. It's real for me anyway. Is it just down to bad training (entirely a possibility)?

You could well be onto something with this! I did an intensive training camp last Oct/Nov/Dec, and on the days that we focused on running - 4 days out fo 5 - we (n=~40) would barely fit in a lunch or dinner after a run. This changed completely if we had weight on our backs (~55lbs) during the run though and pigging out would be standard. Most guys lost weight overall.

Scuba Ste

discus wrote: »

That's a really interesting point. For the past while it has been all about creating bigger muscles, using the 'but bigger muscles use more kcals just to exist' line to justify weights over cardio.

Bigger muscles aslo require more calories. I was going to say that it makes sense that you'll feel hungrier while trying to gain muscle and restricting calories but that's a completely ridiculous concept anyway.

In my anecdotal experience, I think there's generally two types of people; those that gain weight easily and those that lose it easily or people who eat lots and people who don't. Different strategies are going to work for different people. Find the one that works for you and do that.

Kevpants posted in another thread that running was the best way for him to lose weight and not diet but but a nauseating amount of times people will insist its only diet that works. Dieting works more for some and more activity for others but the end result is the same. The problem is it takes most of us a few years to figure out what works best and it's not always what should work best.

I have no idea how either affects your diet though and I never run so...

deadlybuzzman

Personally I find after lifting I could generally quite easily polish off a full chicken or couple of pounds of steak. After a couple of days away from the gym or if I've a particularly inactive day off work and gym, my appetite goes to crap and I could easily eat only once for the whole day if I allowed myself to

kevpants

At risk of repeating myself, I do notice an increase in appetite after a run. Just as much as after lifting.

You may experience a delay in the increaed appetite in my experience, I always put this down to being hot after a run. My hunger usually only kicks in once my temp comes down.

I can only speak from personal experience and I'm probably far from the norm, I'm carrying a lot of muscle in the quads/glutes which are big hungry ones so I always imagine running causes these fellas to use up more resources than China.

I really don't know anything about running other than that it's more fun than spinach and boiled chicken breasts.

Hanley

kevpants wrote: »

At risk of repeating myself, I do notice an increase in appetite after a run. Just as much as after lifting.

You may experience a delay in the increaed appetite in my experience, I always put this down to being hot after a run. My hunger usually only kicks in once my temp comes down.

I can only speak from personal experience and I'm probably far from the norm, I'm carrying a lot of muscle in the quads/glutes which are big hungry ones so I always imagine running causes these fellas to use up more resources than China.

I really don't know anything about running other than that it's more fun than spinach and boiled chicken breasts.

Pretty sure there's anecdotal evidence LIT/running increases appetite and HIIT can suppress it!!

Oryx

I've never lifted, so I can't engage in that half of the debate (no, kettlebells dont count). I'm a few years doing cardio, though, and while it keeps my weight down, and I can eat pretty untidily, I wouldn't say it knocks weight off considerably, or keeps it off without diet restrictions of some sort. It also does not change my shape. Only strength work does that.

The only times I've lost weight rapidly was when I was doing 12 hour + of mixed cardio a week. Which felt like a lot.

On a side note, I don't tend to get ravenous from running unless its an extended run (2 hours plus) or I've run on empty. On a bike my sessions tend to be longer anyway, and I could eat a horse, buttered, when I finish a long bike ride.


tl:dr - run longer and see what happens to your appetite.

Oh, and Hai, noob

Sangre

Can't say I have this experience. I would be in the weight is 90% diet camp (and exercise heavily dictates body composition that at that weight).