I've been told the same thing by many people, my family included: that carbohydrates are the culprit behind weight gain, while fat and protein are not. And oddly enough, the ones telling me this were themselves overweight.
Apart from your point that total calories decide weight loss, this doesn't add up
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
Herman Pontzer's constrained energy expenditure theory is something I know about, and its controversial nature is acknowledged by others besides me who consider it to be off base
It appears to be irrelevant. Take a look at the work Brad Schoenfeld has done on the subject. (a meta-analysis exists too, I'll provide links to both afterward).
wildweasel said:
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
On average, weightlifting sits at 3-5 METs, roughly 300-500 calories per hour, which matches what you said.
Cardio, though, runs 2-3x higher. Light cycling lands at 5-7 METs, jogging at 6mph hits 10 METs, or around 1000cals/hr. If you're genuinely a runner, you'll hit 12+ METs, north of 1200/hr.
When you compare minute-for-minute of training, cardio generally burns 2-3 times more calories than weight lifting, varying with body weight and cardio fitness.
To match the calories from 1 hour of cardio with 1 hour of weight lifting, your cardio would need to look like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as lifting.
Naturally, bodyweight affects how many calories cardio burns — if you carried extra weight, your MET value would be considerably higher than what I listed
Back to Wild Weasel;
, for you; if we did absolutely nothing all day and one guy is 200lbs with 10% body fat while the other guy is 200lbs with 30% body fat, the one with less body fat will burn more calories simply because he has more muscle.
You mentioned not watching the video — did you go through the posts? We're on the same page, so what would I have to argue about with you?dancs said:
wildweasel said:
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
On average, weightlifting sits at 3-5 METs, roughly 300-500 calories per hour, which matches what you said.
Cardio, though, runs 2-3x higher. Light cycling lands at 5-7 METs, jogging at 6mph hits 10 METs, or around 1000cals/hr. If you're genuinely a runner, you'll hit 12+ METs, north of 1200/hr.
When you compare minute-for-minute of training, cardio generally burns 2-3 times more calories than weight lifting, varying with body weight and cardio fitness.
To match the calories from 1 hour of cardio with 1 hour of weight lifting, your cardio would need to look like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as lifting.
Naturally, bodyweight affects how many calories cardio burns — if you carried extra weight, your MET value would be considerably higher than what I listed
It's true that during the workout itself, most vigorous cardio typically burns more calories than weight training does. An hour of running generally outpaces an hour of lifting in calories burned; aerobic versus anaerobic. With cardio you're continuously active, while lifting involves the resting factor. A higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart—understood—but my point, once more, was about the aftermath. Lifting produces muscle damage and glycogen depletion, which calls for protein synthesis and recovery costs that persist once the session is over.
So when two workouts each burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting session will typically carry a greater post exercise energy cost. This is basically what @5byfive said below.
Back to Wild Weasel;
So once more, when it comes to cardio versus weight lifting, the latter comes out on top.
You know this literature well, so you're already aware that the more muscle our bodies carry, the more energy gets used—TDEE compared to fat. Here's another great example, courtesy of me
Cardio has its benefits, but next to weight lifting? Again, the latter comes out on top.
Fight me.
5byfive said:
You mentioned not watching the video — did you go through the posts? We're on the same page, so what would I have to argue about with you?dancs said:
wildweasel said:
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
On average, weightlifting sits at 3-5 METs, roughly 300-500 calories per hour, which matches what you said.
Cardio, though, runs 2-3x higher. Light cycling lands at 5-7 METs, jogging at 6mph hits 10 METs, or around 1000cals/hr. If you're genuinely a runner, you'll hit 12+ METs, north of 1200/hr.
When you compare minute-for-minute of training, cardio generally burns 2-3 times more calories than weight lifting, varying with body weight and cardio fitness.
To match the calories from 1 hour of cardio with 1 hour of weight lifting, your cardio would need to look like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as lifting.
Naturally, bodyweight affects how many calories cardio burns — if you carried extra weight, your MET value would be considerably higher than what I listed
It's true that during the workout itself, most vigorous cardio typically burns more calories than weight training does. An hour of running generally outpaces an hour of lifting in calories burned; aerobic versus anaerobic. With cardio you're continuously active, while lifting involves the resting factor. A higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart—understood—but my point, once more, was about the aftermath. Lifting produces muscle damage and glycogen depletion, which calls for protein synthesis and recovery costs that persist once the session is over.
So when two workouts each burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting session will typically carry a greater post exercise energy cost. This is basically what @5byfive said below.
Back to Wild Weasel;
So once more, when it comes to cardio versus weight lifting, the latter comes out on top.
You know this literature well, so you're already aware that the more muscle our bodies carry, the more energy gets used—TDEE compared to fat. Here's another great example, courtesy of me
Cardio has its benefits, but next to weight lifting? Again, the latter comes out on top.
Fight me.
Okay, here's where I stand: if you compare 1 hour of lifting that uses 500 calories against 1 hour of cardio that uses 500 calories, then yes, the lifting session comes out ahead. No argument from me on that.dancs said:
wildweasel said:
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
On average, weightlifting sits at 3-5 METs, roughly 300-500 calories per hour, which matches what you said.
Cardio, though, runs 2-3x higher. Light cycling lands at 5-7 METs, jogging at 6mph hits 10 METs, or around 1000cals/hr. If you're genuinely a runner, you'll hit 12+ METs, north of 1200/hr.
When you compare minute-for-minute of training, cardio generally burns 2-3 times more calories than weight lifting, varying with body weight and cardio fitness.
To match the calories from 1 hour of cardio with 1 hour of weight lifting, your cardio would need to look like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as lifting.
Naturally, bodyweight affects how many calories cardio burns — if you carried extra weight, your MET value would be considerably higher than what I listed
It's true that during the workout itself, most vigorous cardio typically burns more calories than weight training does. An hour of running generally outpaces an hour of lifting in calories burned; aerobic versus anaerobic. With cardio you're continuously active, while lifting involves the resting factor. A higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart—understood—but my point, once more, was about the aftermath. Lifting produces muscle damage and glycogen depletion, which calls for protein synthesis and recovery costs that persist once the session is over.
So when two workouts each burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting session will typically carry a greater post exercise energy cost. This is basically what @5byfive said below.
Back to Wild Weasel;
So once more, when it comes to cardio versus weight lifting, the latter comes out on top.
You know this literature well, so you're already aware that the more muscle our bodies carry, the more energy gets used—TDEE compared to fat. Here's another great example, courtesy of me
Cardio has its benefits, but next to weight lifting? Again, the latter comes out on top.
Fight me.
lol well no shit.dancs said:
wildweasel said:
I see where the confusion comes from now. You're putting 1 hour of cardio side by side with 1 hour of lifting and assuming both carry the same MET value — that's the part you're missing. For example, you figure 1 hour of lifting burns 500 cals and 1 hour of cardio burns 500 cals.dancs said:
To be honest, I skipped the video and only glanced at the comments rather than reading them properly. Still, I'm glad we see eye to eye on this!
Was my point unclear, or did you take it the wrong way?
Let me put it another way:
Ultimately, the only thing that counts is whether we burned more than we took in. For weight loss in general, that's the bottom line.
Now, about how cardio differs from lifting — say you spend 1 hour doing cardio and burn 500 calories. No afterburn happens; put differently, those 500 calories are gone during the session and nothing more afterward.
On the other hand, if you lift heavy for 1 hour, you burn 500 calories and continue burning extra calories for 24-36 hours once the session ends, because your body is repairing muscle, refilling glycogen, restoring hormones, and so on. That's the afterburn effect.
There are cases, like yours, where cardio gets done more than lifting does. But in a controlled setting — same intensity, same duration, same average heart rate — a direct cardio versus weight lifting comparison would favor the latter. Naturally, every person and every situation differs. It all depends, doesn't it? Genetics matters too. Even so, lifting weights wins out in most cases, purely because the afterburn lingers.
Beyond that, if you lean more on cardio and less on weight lifting, you risk losing muscle instead of keeping or building it while eating at a caloric deficit. I'm sure you're already aware of that.
So sure, a calorie is a calorie, yet cardio and lifting weights really do differ in degree. With all the fad diets and trendy diets out there, none of it matters in the end.... The only thing that matters is whether we're expending more calories than we're consuming.
On average, weightlifting sits at 3-5 METs, roughly 300-500 calories per hour, which matches what you said.
Cardio, though, runs 2-3x higher. Light cycling lands at 5-7 METs, jogging at 6mph hits 10 METs, or around 1000cals/hr. If you're genuinely a runner, you'll hit 12+ METs, north of 1200/hr.
When you compare minute-for-minute of training, cardio generally burns 2-3 times more calories than weight lifting, varying with body weight and cardio fitness.
To match the calories from 1 hour of cardio with 1 hour of weight lifting, your cardio would need to look like walking at 3-4 mph… 3-5 METs, the same metabolic equivalent as lifting.
Naturally, bodyweight affects how many calories cardio burns — if you carried extra weight, your MET value would be considerably higher than what I listed
It's true that during the workout itself, most vigorous cardio typically burns more calories than weight training does. An hour of running generally outpaces an hour of lifting in calories burned; aerobic versus anaerobic. With cardio you're continuously active, while lifting involves the resting factor. A higher average HBPM compared to its counterpart—understood—but my point, once more, was about the aftermath. Lifting produces muscle damage and glycogen depletion, which calls for protein synthesis and recovery costs that persist once the session is over.
So when two workouts each burn 500 calories during the session, the lifting session will typically carry a greater post exercise energy cost. This is basically what @5byfive said below.
Back to Wild Weasel;
So once more, when it comes to cardio versus weight lifting, the latter comes out on top.
You know this literature well, so you're already aware that the more muscle our bodies carry, the more energy gets used—TDEE compared to fat. Here's another great example, courtesy of me
Cardio has its benefits, but next to weight lifting? Again, the latter comes out on top.
Fight me.
