(Of course it should go without saying that weight is not the only aspect of fitness; one might pursue weightlifting because they want to be big and strong, or crossfit because they want a more well-rounded set of fitness capabilities, etc. But arguing, as the posted article does, that lifting is a better way to lose weight than running, just seems silly and unsupported.)
I don't think anyone would really diagree that the more lean body mass one has, the more calories that individual will burn at rest or with doing any particular exercise. The question arises, how seriously are you performing each of these activities. For the recreational lifter who is relatively not serious about putting on a lot of lean muscle mass, I contend that running, especially at longer distances at lower intensities, will burn more calories. For the serious weightlifter, there is a point you will burn more calories at rest when you start to add muscle mass. However, no mass, no burn. Unarguably, running will burn more calories in a workout or really for any given time frame in which the comparable activities become aerobic but will have limited afterburn. Weightlifting CAN have afterburn, but it depends on how intense it is. At my body weight, running 50 miles per week (1 hour per day for 7 days at my pace...slow, I know) equates to about 6500 calories burned if there is no afterburn. Vigorous weightlifting burns, for my weight (190 lbs), about 524 calories per hour. If you lifted weights for 1 hour 7 days per week for an hour, this equates to 3668 calories. That is a 2842 calorie difference. Each lb of lean body mass typically burns 50 more calories per day at rest from what I have read. At 7 days in a week, I would have to put on an additional 8 lbs of lean body mass to compensate for this amount. For someone concerned about speed, this 8 lbs could really slow you down if there weren't a corresponding fat loss.
So, really your title doesn't match your post, because in the title you talk about fat loss, but in the text of your post you talk about having a great body...which is subjective by the way, and comparing weight loss to a great body is like comparing oranges to necatines. Of course you will see more dramatic before and after pics with weight lifting, but most people on here don't really care to spend enough time lifting weights for aesthetics. We run because we love to and we lift weights because it helps with running. Most of the people on here don't run to get "great body".
mileage man wrote:
Of course, the fact still remains that running burns way more calories than lifting does
That's the point you and most everyone else doesn't get: running burns more calories WHILE you work out but lifting burns more while you RECOVER.
If you go to the gym to lift weights, about 80% of the time spent there is waiting. So for an hour there you only really stress your muscles for 12 minutes. You you gain INFINITELY more than you do from 12 minutes of running.
If I would compare it to running, I'd say weightlifting is like doing 40 yard Sprints, 50 of them. Takes like 5 minutes or so. Yet you would probably agree that it burns more calories than 20 min of easy slogging. Right?
Ah, the monthly weightlifting-is-better-than-running troll thread!
Xfitguy wrote:
mileage man wrote:Of course, the fact still remains that running burns way more calories than lifting does
That's the point you and most everyone else doesn't get: running burns more calories WHILE you work out but lifting burns more while you RECOVER.
If you go to the gym to lift weights, about 80% of the time spent there is waiting. So for an hour there you only really stress your muscles for 12 minutes. You you gain INFINITELY more than you do from 12 minutes of running.
If I would compare it to running, I'd say weightlifting is like doing 40 yard Sprints, 50 of them. Takes like 5 minutes or so. Yet you would probably agree that it burns more calories than 20 min of easy slogging. Right?
12 minutes of running? I would spend the entire hour running and burn more calories than you do lifting weights for 12 minutes.
running math wrote:
12 minutes of running? I would spend the entire hour running and burn more calories than you do lifting weights for 12 minutes.
Yes but look at your before/after pictures - they both look the same.
Xfitguy wrote:
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.
I see fat people benching all the time. Fat people can't do pullups because they're fat, but lots of fat people do assisted pullups. Damn near no one, thin or fat, does cleans.
What if we did something really wacky, like lift weights AND run? Imagine that.
Azaleas wrote:
What if we did something really wacky, like lift weights AND run? Imagine that.
This is good advise for ladies, because it gets them the toning/definition that they aim for.
For guys however, running should be restricted to a minimum and fast/short stuff, otherwise you will lose too much muscle mass.
Xfitguy wrote:
Yes but look at your before/after pictures - they both look the same.
Is this a joke? I was told there'd be no trolling today!
You do realize that those pictures are doctored, right? Even if they weren't, that is not how I would want to look. If you want to look that way, fine, I think that is great. Not my preference, though.
Want real pictures/video of authentic weight loss? Try this video:
http://youtu.be/8SbXgQqbOoUBumping this because Xfitguy apparently missed it the first time:
joho wrote:
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.abstractHere 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
Professor Gerald Lambeau wrote:
You do realize that those pictures are doctored, right? Even if they weren't, that is not how I would want to look. If you want to look that way, fine, I think that is great. Not my preference, though.
Want real pictures/video of authentic weight loss? Try this video:
http://youtu.be/8SbXgQqbOoU
The doctored ones are those where women take testosterone and other PEDs that deliver a more muscular (read: male) kind of body. No one admires those.
Xfitguy wrote:
running math wrote:12 minutes of running? I would spend the entire hour running and burn more calories than you do lifting weights for 12 minutes.
Yes but look at your before/after pictures - they both look the same.
Not at all. My weight fluctuates depending on how much I run.
Are you suggesting that one CANNOT lose weight with just running alone? Surely not.
running math wrote:
Not at all. My weight fluctuates depending on how much I run.
Are you suggesting that one CANNOT lose weight with just running alone? Surely not.
Yes and as soon as you stop you will gain weight because you don't have muscles that work while you're idling.
Professor Gerald Lambeau wrote:
Want real pictures/video of authentic weight loss? Try this video:
http://youtu.be/8SbXgQqbOoU
Thanks for that. This guys is more real and inspirational than all of the full of themselves, blowing smoke up their own asses, I can run a 15 minute 5k losers that post on this site. I'm going for a run now.
The rest of this thread is worthless.
Riiiiiight wrote:
Thanks for that. This guys is more real and inspirational than all of the full of themselves
He also packed on most of the weight he lost. He is back to 240 lbs right now. How inspirational.
You do know the way before and after pictures work don't you?
They take a muscular fit person, pay them a bunch of money to become fat. Then the before picture is really the after and vice versa.
His recent pics don't look like 240. And if he weight over 320 to start then, even if you're right, he hasn't put back on "most" of the weight. I guess Xfitters can't do math.
Aghast wrote:
You do know the way before and after pictures work don't you?
They take a muscular fit person, pay them a bunch of money to become fat. Then the before picture is really the after and vice versa.
For commercials that may be the case. But these are pictures of members that document their journey. It's legit.
Dude, just give up the trolling already. The effort was pretty solid, but no regular visitor to letsrun.com is going to sincerely try to get others to quit running. You got a lot of serious response, including mine earlier, so hats off to you. 8/10.