"The truth about six pack abs"

[why]

I think a lot of people need to get introspective and remove their biases on this forum.

 

[unjung]

We need a Mythbusters episode.

 

[lynchpatrickj]

CalorieCounter isn't going to solve this dilemma. People train at different intensities, and we have no way of knowing what CC's "baseline" intensity is supposed to be in order to know how many calories we're actually burning.

With running, however, it's rather basic physics to get a good estimate of how many calories you burn if you weigh a certain amount and maintain a certain pace over a certain elevation for a certain amount of time.

 

[suited]

Originally Posted by mkarim

OK. What's the best way to burn some fat (about 2-3 inches worth) on the abs?
Heavy weight training in a calorific deficit. If you do what a few of these fellas are telling you to do, you're going to loose a lot of muscle during your cut.

Originally Posted by whacked

O RLY? Calories burned with weight lifting, vigorous effort: http://caloriecount.about.com/calori...ht-lifting-a19 Calories burned with running, 7mph (not very vigorous to some) http://caloriecount.about.com/calori...d-running-a343
It's inefficient because anyone with half a brain who has experience will tell you that a cardio heavy program on a cut is going to result in too much muscle loss. Heavy weight training, supplemented with SOME cardio is the best way to cut. Your links aren't really a great reference. They assume the average person runs at 7mph for an hour, and they are so generalized it's a joke. You can't quantify all exercise into one category and call it "weight lifting". If you're in the gym doing heavy compounds for an hour, you will burn more calories than jogging. Why don't we both post pics of ourselves, since you seem to be an expert I'm sure yours should blow mine out of the water given all your knowledge.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by suited

It's inefficient because anyone with half a brain who has experience will tell you that a cardio heavy program on a cut is going to result in too much muscle loss. Heavy weight training, supplemented with SOME cardio is the best way to cut.

What? No it doesn't.

Your links aren't really a great reference. They assume the average person runs at 7mph for an hour, and they are so generalized it's a joke. You can't quantify all exercise into one category and call it "weight lifting".

It's pretty accurate, really.

If you're in the gym doing heavy compounds for an hour, you will burn more calories than jogging.

Not really. Assuming HR is the bottleneck, the efficiency of cardio will cause more caloric expenditure. Weight training isn't efficient enough because of the energy systems being used as well as rate coding spiking HR and BP too much and causing the aforementioned bottleneck.

Why don't we both post pics of ourselves, since you seem to be an expert I'm sure yours should blow mine out of the water given all your knowledge.

Pens and swords.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by suited

Your links aren't really a great reference. They assume the average person runs at 7mph for an hour, and they are so generalized it's a joke. You can't quantify all exercise into one category and call it "weight lifting".

Before calling anything a joke, READ first and you'll see they also provide defined parameters. Look around and you'll see calorie burning rates for different running speeds as well.


I think it's pretty clear by now you are a joke, and the only reason I responded to your earlier post was to prevent others from making your very mistake, listening to bro science as if it were the Bible.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by whacked

I think it's pretty clear by now you are a joke, and the only reason I responded to your earlier post was to prevent others from making your very mistake, listening to bro science as if it were the Bible.

'Word of God' is more apt.

 

[unexpected]

seriously? weightlifting for an hour burns more calories than running for an hour? seriously? at any intensity?

 

[laxaj]

Originally Posted by unexpected

seriously? weightlifting for an hour burns more calories than running for an hour? seriously? at any intensity?

Is that unexpected?



In high school I did low to medium intensity lifting followed by extended periods of cardio work, coming down to around 60 miles a week. While I was generally strong and could run sub 5 minute miles easily, I never really lost a huge amount of body fat nor did I develop any real size in my chest or shoulders.


I'm currently doing a high intensity lift 3 times a week, with high intensity cardio (erg sprints, pick up basketball) worked in whenever. Not only have I gained a significant amount of mass in my legs, chest, and shoulders, I also have a well defined six pack for the first time in my life.

 

[unexpected]

right laxaj, and i would agree that weightlifting is definitely necessary for building "abercrombie bodies".

If you look at elite marathoners, their bodies suck. sprinter bodies = awesome.

however, i would argue that long distance running is so awesome at burning calories that it burns muscle as well as fat, so i would DISAGREE with the statement that you can burn more calories with weighlifting.

Weightlifting burns some calories but promotes muscle growth. LDR burns a ton of calories but promotes no muscle growth.

 

[James Bond]

Want to burn some calories with weights?

Use your 8 rep max and do the following, 5x5 with 45 seconds between sets:

Romanian deadlift
Front squat
Hang clean
Push press

Tired? Too bad. 135 on the bar and do this complex (don't let go of the bar):

Bent row
Romanian deadlift
Hang clean
Front squat
Push press
Back squat

90 seconds rest and repeat four times.

Pick up your lungs and place them back inside your chest.

 

[unexpected]

Bond, I have no doubt this is exhausting, and would actually be a better workout than just simply jogging, but in terms of sheer caloric expenditure, I still think someone running 10 miles @ a 6 minute pace (1 hour) would burn more overall calories.

I guess all of this is moot unless we could actually test it.

 

[James Bond]

For the simple measure of calories burned, long-duration steady state cardio is probably still king.

However, if you put two similar trainees on a 3x a week schedule with one running for an hour and the other doing the workout I posted, which do you think will look better?

 

[Fat-Elvis]

I don't know why it's such a mystery to people that weight lifting alone can be really effective at burning fat. Notice how a good session of intense weight lifting with little rest time inbetween sets gets your heart rate way up? That's all it takes. It it keeps your metabolism up for a long time.

And YES, lots of cardio and a caloric deficit will make you lose too much muscle. I've been there. Never again. Cardio should be done in moderation, and ideally in shorter more intense bursts, if you goal is to retain/gain muscle mass. Everybody's body is different though. I know from experience that too much cardio is a bad thing for muscle mass.

Also, look into HIIT or tabata cardio if you're dead set on cardio but don't want to lose muscle. It's all-around better anyway. Compare the average marathon runner's body to the body of a sprinter. 'Nuff said.

 

[sabvinnie]

I am pretty sure it is possible to get an 8-pack - you guys need to raise the bar a little.