Yeah I was just referring to cardio in layman/mainstream exercise terms. When they say you can substitute weightlifting for cardio, they mean lifting weights instead of running, biking, etc.

Using weight lifting in succession with aerobic sounds good for keeping the heart rate up, I've never concerned myself with that as I run a lot and I get into ideal range pretty quickly. I don't know what the benefit is for having a high heart rate while lifting, more energy/results? (nor if I'd enjoy supersets as an exercise style).

 

-----signature-----

it's like you are combining cardio with lifting. it really underscores a neat interplay between the two ways your muscles burn energy to generate force.

aerobically respiration (using oxygen), is happening mostly while doing moves that take less energy/second to maintain muscle tone. so, for example, when you are jogging, the is no single set of muscle contractions that literally maxes your muscles out, so they can run aerobically for a long time. your blood supplies your oxygen so when your muscles are screaming for more your heart-rate has to go up to compensate.

when you lift something "heavy", you have to recruit so many muscle fibers and maintain their tone so fiercely that aerobic resp won't cut it. but this can still happen anyways if your running muscles aren't trained or you run for a long time, or you sprint or something. A weight lift is so intense that it blows right through the slow mechanism that you can use for a long period.

most activities aren't strictly one mechanism or the other. my head hurst i'm gonna stop right there.

Some googles articles said that experts are not in agreement on whether anaerobic exercises before aerobic exercises are better, vs the other way around.

I read that for Anaerobic you are using different energy stores (like carbohydrates in the muscles), so it will maybe not impact the fat energy use during aerobic?

Does the benefit come from fatiguing the muscles and reducing their energy supply, so they are still stressed during say jogging? This could lead to some extra energy use, but more so just strengthening?


I'll just read up on it more, there are tons of inaccurate fitness articles though. It can take awhile..

 

-----signature-----

try
power cleans (75 pounds with 1 minute rest in between sets will keep your heart rate up)
snatch (the exercise)
rowing

 

-----signature-----

ohh fyi -- i lost 5 pounds and 12% body fat in 6 months doing very little cardio

i lifted weights 3 times a week for an hour -- I did not change my diet - and in fact there were times i was putting down 3,000 calories a day


12% body fat is a lot of fat to lose -- especially when you consider at my weight it is about 24 pounds.


if cardio is so damn important for weight loss ... how did i do it?

 

-----signature-----

Not from the weight lifting. Learn science, nub. Nor did anyone state you need cardio to lose weight. There are many factors, how active you are, how healthy you eat, good sleeping habits, etc. All you need is a calorie deficit and you will lose weight over time. Even weight lifting contributes some, but only a fraction of aerobic exercises.

Losing a small amount of weight over 6 months could occur from even slight changes.

You can't keep your heart rate as high and for as long with lifting as you can with aerobic exercise(30-60 minutes).

I use a rowing machine, it's an aerobic exercise, not weight lifting.

 

-----signature-----

Lots of truth there. Especially "4. Losing weight early and fast is best."

Last year I lost 90 lbs in six months, and have kept it off for just over a year now. There's something to seeing a lot drop off week by week - it really revs you up and provides a good psychological boost and reinforcement to keep it up and not backslide.


That being said, I think that mentally it is harder to keep it off than lose it.

 

-----signature-----

i started out at 220 pounds at 30% body fat -- after 6 months, i was at 215 pounds at 18% body fat.

30% body fat @ 220 = 66 pounds of fat
18% body fat @ 215 = 38.7 pounds of fat


cardio did not do that -- weight training did


27 pounds of fat is a significant loss -- takes more than a "slight" change to accomplish that -- especially when you consider i only lost 5 pounds - that means a considerable amount of muscle was added.

 

-----signature-----

I'm sorry, you don't break the laws of science. That would be 1200 calories of fat 3 times a week. According to various sites you'd burn 279-558 in an hour, depending on your pace. Compared to running which is 930-1400.

And a pound of muscle at rest only burns 6 calories per day vs 2 for fat.

Body fat % calculations are not always accurate, also.

 

-----signature-----

muscle costs more energy to maintain than fat. might as well train all the muscles you got then. a single aerobic exercise doesn't really cover all the muscles you got ~