Thread: I am having a discussion with someone bout cardio vs weighttraining for

I would say that cardio is more effective for burning calories. Weight training will, of course, burn calories as well, but it wont burn as many as cardio will. Since doing cardio brings your heart rate up much higher. Weight training will lead to muscle gains that will increase the amount of calories you burn while doing nothing, though. So, they're both equally important for burning calories in their own ways, but cardio burns more while you're doing it (if the intensity is high enough).

Anerobic exercise (like weightlifting) will increase your excess post exercise oxygen consumption and the net calories burned will be great then that which is burned during traditional cardio (aerobic exercise).

Originally Posted by Willsnarf

burning calories....which is more effective?

anyone got any views

Will

There is no such thing as anaerobic exercise, weightlifting is aerobic as well. The question is more about the intensity you do each one.

Originally Posted by Vieope

There is no such thing as anaerobic exercise, weightlifting is aerobic as well. The question is more about the intensity you do each one.

huh?

I guess weight training could be aerobic but i think in this instance he is talking about real weightlifting, as in anerobic training.

Originally Posted by P-funk

I weight training could be aeobic

Several grammar errors that I wont even discuss it.


Well IMO anything you do breathing is aerobic. I think it is an outdated notion this idea of anaerobic exercise, you can see how proper breathing is important to any workout and you usually see people gasping fo air after a good set.

Originally Posted by Vieope

Several grammar errors that I wont even discuss it.


Well IMO anything you do breathing is aerobic. I think it is an outdated notion this idea of anaerobic exercise, you can see how proper breathing is important to any workout and you usually see people gasping fo air after a good set.

edited...lol.....

if you squat a 1RM or even a 2RM you are not really breathing at all. Even if we move into something like glycolsis, say 5-10 reps I am not even getting close to full breathes of air (if I am moving through those reps) as I would be if I were jogging on a treadmill.

Even if you are breathing (which you always have to do) anerobic is just reffering to the chemical reactions that are going on so that the body can produce the needed energy to complete the task. It doesn't mean you aren't breathing. It means that the energy conversion is happening without the help of oxygen because chances are you aren't taking in enough oxygen to convert the needed energy fast enough.

Originally Posted by P-funk

edited...lol.....

if you squat a 1RM or even a 2RM you are not really breathing at all. Even if we move into something like glycolsis, say 5-10 reps I am not even getting close to full breathes of air (if I am moving through those reps) as I would be if I were jogging on a treadmill.

Even if you are breathing (which you always have to do) anerobic is just reffering to the chemical reactions that are going on so that the body can produce the needed energy to complete the task. It doesn't mean you aren't breathing. It means that the energy conversion is happening without the help of oxygen because chances are you aren't taking in enough oxygen to convert the needed energy fast enough.

I am still not buying it, even if I thought you were right, I would not let you be the last person in 2005 to convince me of something. Suffocating is still the only anaerobic exercise that I know.

like I said, it isn't that you aren't breathing. It is that you aren't taking in enough oxygen for energy conversion.

You are breaking my balls P, you are breaking my balls..

agree agree agree agree

You are saying that it is not oxygen enough for energy conversion, does that mean if you dont breath the quality of your exercise is still the same? Not altered not even a little bit?

Originally Posted by Willsnarf

burning calories....which is more effective?

anyone got any views

Will

if you are just talking about a weight training session vs. cardio I would say depending on the type of cardio, intensity and duration cardio would burn more calories.

however, weight training increases lean muscle mass and muscle burns calories 24/7, so the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism will be.

my point is weight training and increasing lean muscle is extremely important and in the long run is more effective for weight loss or even for maintaining your weight.

that does not mean cardio is not important or effective, it is. a combination of both weight training and cardio is ideal for weight loss and/or maintaining a lean physique.

Originally Posted by Vieope

You are saying that it is not oxygen enough for energy conversion, does that mean if you dont breath the quality of your exercise is still the same? Not altered not even a little bit?

huh?

If you don't breathe at all you will probably pass out or burst a blood vessel. Unless you are going for a max single and doing a valsava manuever.

I am not making this stuff up. It is documented, researched stuff. this is the how metabolic pathways work. this is how energy is made.

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

if you are just talking about a weight training session vs. cardio I would say depending on the type of cardio, intensity and duration cardio would burn more calories.

however, weight training increases lean muscle mass and muscle burns calories 24/7, so the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism will be.

my point is weight training and increasing lean muscle is extremely important and in the long run is more effective for weight loss or even for maintaining your weight.

that does not mean cardio is not important or effective, it is. a combination of both weight training and cardio is ideal for weight loss and/or maintaining a lean physique.

no vieope will disagree with you too.

Originally Posted by P-funk

no vieope will disagree with you too.

did he get lost, why is he in this forum?

Is it really anaerobic?

Again, it is about intensity, if you run 3 meters, this is anaerobic cardio. If you workout for an hour really fast, weightlifting now is an aerobic exercise.

Originally Posted by Vieope

Is it really anaerobic?

Again, it is about intensity, if you run 3 meters, this is anaerobic cardio. If you workout for an hour really fast, weightlifting now is an aerobic exercise.

it depends on a lot of things. if my heart rate gets up to 170Bpms I have an insane amount of lactic acid build up. that is a byproduct of anerobic metabolism.

True aerobic exercise is not done at that high of an intensity where your heart rate would get up that high. true aeobic exercise is done at lower percentage of max heart rate.

Originally Posted by P-funk

it depends on a lot of things. if my heart rate gets up to 170Bpms I have an insane amount of lactic acid build up. that is a byproduct of anerobic metabolism.

True aerobic exercise is not done at that high of an intensity where your heart rate would get up that high. true aeobic exercise is done at lower percentage of max heart rate.

I read 1780 PMS, now that is scary..

So you agree that we cant say what is more effective for burning fat, cardio or weighlifting. Since one minute of cardio burns less than two hours of weightlifting. I still dont buy that anaerobic things exist, if you stop breathing, you still have oxygen in your veins, if that lowers a lot, you have hypoxia, when you faint due to the lack of oxygen in the brain but other cells still have oxygen to perform other duties. Even when you die, there is still oxygen in you doing things, like rotting.
There is no such thing as anaerobic exercise!

Ok, rotting would be more similar to fermentation.

Originally Posted by Vieope

There is no such thing as anaerobic exercise!

okay...go run some sprint and let me know if you feel lactic acid or not.

if there was no such thing as anerobic exercises why would anyone take creatine?

The problem is the defiinition of it. Anaerobic exercise, it is an exercise without air when anaerobic metabolism occurs and all that fun stuff that you mention like latic acid occurs. But that is a definition that is only valid for a set of a given exercise, not the whole workout process.

IMO if you consider, the time between sets, recovering, drinking water and all the others activities that usually occurs in a normal workout, the whole thing can be called aerobic.

Originally Posted by Vieope

Is it really anaerobic?

Again, it is about intensity, if you run 3 meters, this is anaerobic cardio. If you workout for an hour really fast, weightlifting now is an aerobic exercise.

No, it is not done at a steady rate, so it is essentially a whole bunch of anaerobic exercise sessions with a very mild aerobic component.

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

did he get lost, why is he in this forum?

He is entering the bizarro world for one last hurrah in 2005.

Cardio's better because glycosis occurs when excess pyruvates are released into the bloodstream, causing adipose tissue to be convered into 4 hydrogen molecules.

Originally Posted by Vieope

The problem is the defiinition of it. Anaerobic exercise, it is an exercise without air when anaerobic metabolism occurs and all that fun stuff that you mention like latic acid occurs. But that is a definition that is only valid for a set of a given exercise, not the whole workout process.

IMO if you consider, the time between sets, recovering, drinking water and all the others activities that usually occurs in a normal workout, the whole thing can be called aerobic.

anerobic exercise means that oxygen is not needed for energy conversion. it doesn't mean that you aren't breathing or that you don't have oxygen in your lungs, cells, body. It just means that the energy is being produced without oxygen.


The time between sets is the needed recovery that anerobic exercises requires. if you could do the entire hour without a break then it would be aerobic. the fact that you are doing intervals (lifting, resting, lifting) means that the intensity is such that your oxygen intake is not sufficient to continue with the work your are placing on your body. So you take a break and recover and go again. The intensity creates the anerobic environment. If the intensity were less then you would be able to just sit there and bench press for a full hour and work in an aerobic environment.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, it is not done at a steady rate, so it is essentially a whole bunch of anaerobic exercise sessions with a very mild aerobic component.

Anaerobic exercise is something done without air. That is the definition of it, not that the air breathed will be used or not but that it is an exercise done without air. People breathe during a set and there is oxygen in the blood even if they hold their breath.

Now if I admit some parts of a workout is anaerobic, just because you are Dale and you are kinda nice but you say that a workout has mild aerobic componets, so why would you say that weightlifiting is 100% anaerobic and not aerobic? Why would you choose in favor of one and not the other? Are you there to see if the mild aerobic components dont become not so mild and increase over time, leaving the mild components being the anaerobic and not the aerobic.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

He is entering the bizarro world for one last hurrah in 2005.

Originally Posted by P-funk

anerobic exercise means that oxygen is not needed for energy conversion.

I think I found the problem. You think that anaerobic is something done without the assistance of the air, even if it is breathed during an activity. I think that anaerobic thing is something done without air, in any level. Is there a bodybuilding dictionary with the final definition for us to see who is right?