Weight Loss with Weights

[Guest guest]

wrote:

<Next, I would suggest high reps (more reps, more calories burned)

Although there may be room for criticism here. It may be possible to

burn more calories by lifting a heavy weight at low repetitions.>

Weight training isn't the best way to expend energy in the gym. If the

objective was to burn calories, aerobic exercise would be much more

effective. The main benefit of weight training is the ability to add lean

muscle tissue. I'd stick to lower repetitions (anything less than twelve)

and throw in some interval training at the end of the workout. That would

form a very potent fat burning cocktail.

[Expenditure of energy is all that matters, not how you achieve it. Would

you care to quote how much distance running is needed to compare with

only 20 minutes of strenuous weight training, intervals, boxing sparring,

sprinting or hard manual labour? See any standard text on ergonomics

or exercise physiology. The main benefit of weight training is lean muscle

gain ONLY if you happen to be a bodybuilder. If you are a weightlifter,

powerlifter or track & field athlete, your main aim is to increase qualities

such as strength, power and speed. Mel Siff]

Don Nguyen

Sydney, Australia

*Kindly sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them

to be published.

[Guest guest]

Don Nguyen wrote:

<I wasn't being very clear. The main point I was trying to make

was that the main benefit of weight training with respect to body

composition is increase in lean muscle mass (or preservation of

lean muscle mass if dieting). Thus for " weight loss with weights " ,

the weight training should be focused on building/preserving lean

muscle mass, not on expending calories.>

**** It is understood that cardiovascular activity is typically used

for weight loss because it is easier to burn more calories doing a

treadmill, bike, stairclimber, etc. IF the intensity is high (say

>65/70% Max HR)

[This is not understood - there is plenty of research which shows that

high intensity intervals with or without added loading very effectively

" burns " a large number of calories. It does not matter how one forces

the body to expend energy - one may use strenuous weight training or

strenuous cardio training, provided that the duration of the given regime

is sufficient. Maybe the problem again lies in the wording of your

response. Mel Siff]

However, if I have a client who is trying to lose weight, and I'm

prescribing them cardiovascular exercise and weight training. Why

would I put them in the weight room doing 3 sets of 10-12 reps, with

3 minute rest intervals, and have them doing split work-outs,

working out chest/tri, back/bi, legs on three seperate days.

If they want to lose weight and they are doing cardio, I'm going to

make them burn as many calories as possible while working out. This

would include limiting rest times between sets, working large

muscles, doing full body instead of splitting body parts up over

days, and doing high repetitions to increase calories burned

(bearing in mind the weight provides overload).

The purpose of weight training for an individual losing weight

should be to increase lean mass (muscle) which will increase resting

metabolism, etc. But there is no reason you can't make their weight

training program intense in the sense that it maximizes energy

expenditure.

Melnk

College Park, MD

[Guest guest]

Melnyk wrote:

> Don Nguyen wrote:

> I wasn't being very clear. The main point I was trying to make

> was that the main benefit of weight training with respect to body

> composition is increase in lean muscle mass (or preservation of

> lean muscle mass if dieting). Thus for " weight loss with weights " ,

> the weight training should be focused on building/preserving lean

> muscle mass, not on expending calories.>

I have read that the difference in calorie expenditure between muscle

and fat is only about 5 calories per day per pound. There are good

reasons to increase muscle mass (appearance being the one I am most

interested in) but I'm not sure increased metabolism is really one of

them - perhaps this rationale is overrated.

> However, if I have a client who is trying to lose weight, and I'm

> prescribing them cardiovascular exercise and weight training. Why

> would I put them in the weight room doing 3 sets of 10-12 reps, with

> 3 minute rest intervals, and have them doing split work-outs,

> working out chest/tri, back/bi, legs on three seperate days.

If the objective is to burn calories, what difference does it make

whether you do whole body or just parts on different days, as long as

the amount of time is the same? And why 3 minutes rest, anyway? 30

seconds in the form of stretching should be sufficient.

Doss

Boerne, USA

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

It was written:

> That's certainly true, but muscle also burns more calories; in

> fact, every pound of muscle burns 40 calories per day according to

> stats I've read which is more than other tissue. It's one of the

> reasons Nature doesn't care about it past the point of having enough

> to function. It's expensive to maintain.

But fat burns about 35 calories a day, so the advantage is not great.

By your reasoning, gaining fat should help you lose weight also! The

ideal thing would be to gain muscle while losing fat but this is not

easy to do after the first 6 weeks or so of exercising (assuming the

person was more or less sedentary before beginning to exercise).

Doing aerobic exercise improves endurance so that a person can do whatever

they do in life without getting tired. High reps builds endurance in

whatever muscle is being exercised. Low reps increases size more, and

strength. All these things are desirable, IMO, but if you want to

lose weight, eat the amount of good food that will create a slight or

moderate calorie deficit. No matter what kind of exercise you do or

how much, you will gain weight if you eat more calories than you burn.

I know many part time athletes who eat ridiculous amounts of food

under the illusion they have earned it, yet they obviously have a lot

of excess fat. Unless you spend hours in the gym every day, or out

on the road running or cycling etc., don't eat like a bodbuilder,

lifter, or endurance athlete!!

Doss

Boerne, USA

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

<dxsdoss@j...> wrote:

> I have read that the difference in calorie expenditure between muscle

> and fat is only about 5 calories per day per pound. There are good

> reasons to increase muscle mass (appearance being the one I am most

> interested in) but I'm not sure increased metabolism is really one of

> them - perhaps this rationale is overrated.

**** A pound of fat equates to ~3500 calories. A pound of musce

equates to ~7000 calories. Therefore, having more muscle tissue than

fat tissue will give you a higher metabolism. To keep this short and

sweet, if someone goes on a diet to lose weight, and doesn't work

out to increase muscle tissue, their metabolism will slow, making it

harder and harder as the months go by to lose weight.

> If the objective is to burn calories, what difference does it make

> whether you do whole body or just parts on different days, as long as

> the amount of time is the same? And why 3 minutes rest, anyway? 30

> seconds in the form of stretching should be sufficient.

If we compare two identical people, same diet, same height/weight,

etc. Everything is the same except their work-out. Person A does Mon-

Arms, Wed-Chest/Back, Fri-Legs.

Person B does Full body Mon, Wed, Fri. Who is going to burn more

calories? The person working out all of their muscle groups will

burn more calories as opposed to the person working them idividually.

3 minutes rest between exercises isn't bad, but if I want my client

to keep their heart rate up, and work quickly and efficiently, I

would say, rest 30 seconds. Keeping the heart rate up should

hopefully burn more calories. 3 minutes rest is for the intervals

between sets of exercises not holding a stretch for 3 minutes. I

would recommend to my clients over 30/35yrs old, hold the stretch

for a minute, no less than 15 seconds if I had to set a minimum.

Melnyk

College Park, MD

*Kindly sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them

to be published.