The Distance Dilemma: Why Long Runs Aren’t The Fast Track To Fat Loss

The advantage in that weight training helps your basal metabolic rate has been over-sold. If you look at the research, it can really only help you burn 100 extra calories a day. If you add an extra 5 mins to your aerobic exercise, you will have a bigger effect.

At the same time, I'm a big advocate of weight lifting for competitive runners and for regular people - but not for a weight losing tool.

You can find a lot of examples where weight lifting trumps running. You won't find any similar before/after success stories from running like this:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body-transformation-fitness-infatuation.html

of course they agree with weightlifting being better. it's bodybuilding.com

that's like going to republican.com and everyone agreeing Romney is better than Obama.

merrrr wrote:

of course they agree with weightlifting being better. it's bodybuilding.com

Have you seen the transformation pictures? I have yet to see such success with running only.

Weight is not a function of biology, it is of physics. Ittakes way more calories to run than lift. There is your center of mass moving the distance of the run and then all of the internal movements. You would have to literally be lifting weights for hours, no rest, to replicate that.

Weight is basically a calories in vs calories out equation.

SumguyI wrote:

Weight is not a function of biology, it is of physics. Ittakes way more calories to run than lift. There is your center of mass moving the distance of the run and then all of the internal movements. You would have to literally be lifting weights for hours, no rest, to replicate that.

Weight is basically a calories in vs calories out equation.

Ok then why are 80% of runners at your typical 5k event overweight?

Here is a study that came out last year on fat loss. It was interesting in that it was specific to types of fat. It found that aerobic exercise was more effective at reducing subcutaneous abdominal fat.

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/early/2011/08/10/ajpendo.00291.2011.abstract

Here is a link to the NPR article written on the study.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/08/26/139971417/jogging-fights-beer-belly-fat-better-than-weights?ps=sh_sthdl

Xfitguy wrote:

Have you seen the transformation pictures? I have yet to see such success with running only.

You basically can't start running at 400 lbs, so you won't transform from that. And you won't build big muscles running, so if that's your desired aesthetic you won't get it from running either. Running also won't give you breast implants, though I'm not so sure you can credit that one to weightlifting.

The #1 thing when losing weight is controlling what you eat. People get fat by eating mountains of garbage. If you're running 100 miles a week you can burn through quite a lot but not if you're a casual hobby jogger, and not if you go to the gym to do some lifting 3x a week either.

Xfitguy wrote:

Ok then why are 80% of runners at your typical 5k event overweight?

Probably the same reason 90% of the people at the gym sitting on a weight machine are overweight. They consume too many calories and don't perform enough of their chosen activity.

Hey, Xdorkguy, last time I checked running is about getting better at running, not getting a "good" body. Go back to your stupid XF box and do some Farging Frannies or whatever you morons name your workouts.

This^. Serious runners run to get faster and/or because they like it, not to lose fat. If you are only concerned about looks there is nothing wrong with that, but don't come on here and tell us how crossfit or some other fad workout is the best thing for us. There are many aspects to "fitness", and I am not aware of any exercise regimen that allows you to obtain your potential in all of them.

The story is obviously geared toward promoting weight training because it's on a bodybuilding website, but the writer is not advocating ZERO distance running. The writer is promoting a more balance approached to fitness with an emphasis on combining 'cardio' with lifting weights.

The article clearly states in the first bold paragraph "Learn why you should pair logging miles with lifting weight!"

He/she is merely stating that running by itself will not give you dramatic decreases in body fat and increased muscle definition like you see in the before and after pics, and he/she is absolutely right.

good stuff first wrote:

Probably the same reason 90% of the people at the gym sitting on a weight machine are overweight.

Sitting on a weight machine is the first mistake - but how many overweight people do you see doing free weights? Pullups, Cleans, Bench, etc? Hint - very few.

asdfasdf wrote:

You basically can't start running at 400 lbs, so you won't transform from that.

Yes you can - but you'll get injured quickly. ;) But you could always start walking and the gallowalking and then running - still you won't have great success as you do with weightlifting in terms of before/after pictures.

Good Rick wrote:

There are many aspects to "fitness", and I am not aware of any exercise regimen that allows you to obtain your potential in all of them.

Of course not, neither are decathletes the best athletes in any of the 10 disciplines. But in overall fitness, Crossfit is closer to it than just running.

Xfitguy wrote:

merrrr wrote:

of course they agree with weightlifting being better. it's bodybuilding.com

Have you seen the transformation pictures? I have yet to see such success with running only.

Here's just one example: Steve Way.

Its pretty common sense that running burns a ship ton of calories.

redux wrote:

Hey, Xdorkguy, last time I checked running is about getting better at running, not getting a "good" body. Go back to your stupid XF box and do some Farging Frannies or whatever you morons name your workouts.

Exactly. No one who is serious about any reasonably taxing sport should be worried about fat loss. When you train to compete, fat loss takes care of itself.

Xfitguy wrote:

Good Rick wrote:

There are many aspects to "fitness", and I am not aware of any exercise regimen that allows you to obtain your potential in all of them.

Of course not, neither are decathletes the best athletes in any of the 10 disciplines. But in overall fitness, Crossfit is closer to it than just running.

Ok, that's fine. Some people here would rather be fast than be mediocre in everything. Neither is "right" or "wrong", so why do you care what strangers choose to do?

Haha. I assume 'Xfitguy' is being intentionally humorous ('scientific article', 'superior for before-after pics', 'most comments agree'), but I will comment anyway.

The main argument the article makes against running is that most people will probably get bored of it and stop, and therefore gain back the weight they lost. The article concludes on this basis that running is not an effective way to lose weight.

Of course, the fact still remains that running burns way more calories than lifting does, and that the 'getting bored and quitting' argument could apply just as well to lifting as to running.