Spinning vs Lifting

deadlybuzzman

I was having a conversation with someone over the weekend that was going to start back at some form of training and was weighing up all the different options when I realised something.
The majority of women I've seen doing spinning classes don't look like they train but the vast majority of women that lift do look like they train.
What I'm wondering is there something to that or is it that the people that lift are already more committed and in shape to start with rather than the training itself being more effective?

Essien

I could use my girlfriend as a good example here.

Last year she lost some weight by doing almost completely cardio, the bulk of which was spinning classes. However, the end result was that she was a good bit lighter but not necessarily happy with her shape as she was just very thin.

This year, about 80% or her training is resistance, but she supplements her fat loss by doing maybe 1 spin or HIIT class per week. She's also eating a lot more protein now (about 1g/lb). She's not getting any lighter this time but is significantly happier with her progress and her appearance.

In her own words, she is now more toned than ever and happier than she's ever been with her appearance. The reason she looks better is because she does strength training now which supports that 'toned' look which a lot of women want. Spinning (or any cardio) alone won't do this, it will just make you lighter without sustaining the desired body composition.

It's not a question of commitment, it comes down to the type of training you do and how you support it with your diet.

Alf Veedersane

Depends on the spinning class as well. One I used go to was aimed a King of the MOuntains class that was 90 mins of hurting. Didn't see too many people at that that didn't look like they trained.

they didn't necessarily look like people who weight trained but horses for courses.

caviardreams

Doesn't always have to be either/or - both can work side by side. It's also depends on your goals - and on what you enjoy as well.

MartyMcFly84

Do both.

MightyMandarin

It really depends. Anyone can get lean with purely weight training and a solid diet so there's no need for anyone to push themselves through a spin class if they hate it.

The perception that 'weights make you bulky' is still quite common unfortunately, so I see a lot of women who could make much faster progress with resistance training but stick to spin classes or zumba instead because of misconceptions about resistance training.

Tar.Aldarion

They do different things so have different results, personally I would do both. If you do high resistance training with a bike or crosstrainer etc you will have good calves and quads etc. Take the average person cycling their whole lives in the netherlands, they tend to look quite good, not an excess of muscle, but very athletic.

WHIP IT!

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

They do different things so have different results, personally I would do both. If you do high resistance training with a bike or crosstrainer etc you will have good calves and quads etc. Take the average person cycling their whole lives in the netherlands, they tend to look quite good, not an excess of muscle, but very athletic.

... why the Netherlands?

MartyMcFly84

... why the Netherlands?

Its an extremely flat country and cycling is used a major form of transport. Up to 30-40% of the population use cycling as their primary source of transport.

As compared to Ireland it is difficult to get stats as the figures would be so low in comparison.

Killgore Trout

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Take the average person cycling their whole lives in the netherlands, they tend to look quite good, not an excess of muscle, but very athletic.

I think it's a tenuous correlation.

From what I've seen of Dutch cyclists they bimble along using minimal energy, not breaking a sweat in their work clothes. Most would be adapted to that sort of exercise within a few weeks.

I think this type of cycling does not create the necessary adaptive stress to have such a significant effect on long term body composition - though generally speaking an an active lifestyle is going to tip the scales in one's favour.

Postmen cycle all the time. They don't all look athletic.

Hanley

Killgore Trout wrote: »

I think it's a tenuous correlation.

From what I've seen of Dutch cyclists they bimble along using minimal energy, not breaking a sweat in their work clothes. Most would be adapted to that sort of exercise within a few weeks.

I think this type of cycling does not create the necessary adaptive stress to have such a significant effect on long term body composition - though generally speaking an an active lifestyle is going to tip the scales in one's favour.

Postmen cycle all the time. They don't all look athletic.

This.

There's other factors at play that arent cycling.

Like nutrition. Weather. General activity levels. etc etc

Mellor

But still, cycling everywhere, even if it's just bimbling along, is gonna carry some sort of energy load over driving/bus/train.

jive

Mellor wrote: »

But still, cycling everywhere, even if it's just bimbling along, is gonna carry some sort of energy load over driving/bus/train.

This. Stop reading too much into 'the Netherlands'. What he's really saying is people who cycle have athletic looking legs. Of course there's 6 million different factors at play for an individual's body composition but cycling will help tip the scales in your favour over transport where you just sit on your arse.

In b4 cycling is cardio and won't help your body composition.

In b4 emaciated pro cyclist picture.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes exactly as jive said, it doesn't matter where, I just have extensive experience there, and cycling there. If you cycle a lot you will get athletic legs, I chose them because of sample size (there are more bikes than people there). I get what you mean about plodding along having low resistance, you would think it would affect composition less than it does.

MartyMcFly84

Whether the cycling is intense or not it is still burning calories, and would have an effect on body comp.

If you eliminated the cycling and kept all other factors the same there would be a significant number of calories per week not not being burned that could lead to a direct change in body comp.

I think the point being made is that on average the Dutch lead a much less sedentary life style than the Irish, and have lower levels of obesity. More of them being active on a daily basis is one of the factors that contribute to this

Hanley

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Whether the cycling is intense or not it is still burning calories, and would have an effect on body comp.

If you eliminated the cycling and kept all other factors the same there would be a significant number of calories per week not not being burned that could lead to a direct change in body comp.

I think the point being made is that on average the Dutch lead a much less sedentary life style than the Irish, and have lower levels of obesity. More of them being active on a daily basis is one of the factors that contribute to this

You can't control for that in the real world unfortunately so it's a moot point.

Any uptick in kcal expenditure will be met by your body asking for an uptick in kcal intake.

It's a very weak argument that people make all the time when it comes to body comp change.

You can't just change a single thing and expect a difference.

It's a much more holistic lifestyle thing.

MartyMcFly84

Any uptick in kcal expenditure will be met by your body asking for an uptick in kcal intake.

It's a very weak argument that people make all the time when it comes to body comp change.

I agree and disagree. An increase in energy expenditure can lead to you body wanting additional calories. However I cannot see how adding say 20kms to your daily cycling route would have an significant impact on your body needing to replace energy burned.

However a decrease in activity is not always linked to a decrease in calorie consumption.

Alf Veedersane

Just to rewind...the cycling in the OP was spinning. Not trundling around Eindhoven.

Tar.Aldarion

Hanley wrote: »

You can't control for that in the real world unfortunately so it's a moot point.

Any uptick in kcal expenditure will be met by your body asking for an uptick in kcal intake.

It's a very weak argument that people make all the time when it comes to body comp change.

You can't just change a single thing and expect a difference.

It's a much more holistic lifestyle thing.

They are not equal uptick in my experience, when I do 1000-2000 calories of cardio I do not feel the need to eat near that amount of extra calories, actually I tend to not really be any hungrier and just feel the need to eat my normal meals. However when I lift (which i have just started) I burn few calories and am way hungrier. What is that about man?!
In general I agree about changing a single thing.