http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242- 304--7753-0,00.html

Interesting article about weight lifting vs. cardio.

You can find research supporting any claim, or refuting any claim. The best way to determine what's true for yourself is to experiment. That articles analysis of several things has me doubting, especially the discussion of BMR and the calorie burn comparison between strength training and running.

As my LBM (lean body mass, another TLA* since the article started it!) has changed, more muscle mass and less fat, I'm finding that I have to eat more to maintain my weight, and even more to GAIN weight (which I'm getting close to wanting to do). I'm eating an extra 500+ calories per day than I was when I was in "lose mode" and I'm still losing weight, which is in direct contrast to the authors claims that you have to gain weight to increase your BMR, that significant an increase in calorie should, at the very least, have plateau'd my weight if not caused it to increase. Have I done the impossible? According to the article, yes, but in reality: no, because the article oversimplifies things and has an obvious agenda, despite the authors claims of neutrality.

There are obviously extremists on both sides of the fence for the best way to lose fat and "lean up" but, as always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I know plenty of people who have maintained weight but decreased their body fat %, and as a result have increased their LBM, and now they eat a lot more than they used to. The net weight change is probably close to zero for the people I'm thinking of, and according to the article, their BMR shoudln't have changed, so increasing their calorie intake would mean they should be gaining weight. Not the case at all.

In no way am I an advocate of not running, running is definitely a great exercise and a great way to make your body work, but my honest opinion is that any GOOD workout routine includes at least a few days of cardio to go with a few days of weights. This article takes a tone of "yeah, strength training is cool, but RUN everywhere!" and as a result, it subtly implies "buy the products we advertise on our site and in our magazine for RUNNING!" Call me a pessimist, but I always try to figure out what a person has to gain by saying or doing what they do before I decide how credible they are or how much truthiness is in what they say.

The author may claim to follow "reputable" sources, but the only reputable source I need is myself and my own results. YMMV (Your mileage may vary.)

*TLA - Three Letter Acronym

I don't think I believe the part about the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). My "coach" (who has a lot of knowledge and experience) will swear by the theory that 20-30 min of aerobic exercise 1st thing in the morning before eating will raise your metabolism significantly and if you eat every 2-3 hours, your metabolism will stay high throughout the entire day. I haven't had a chance to test this theory yet though. I'm working on it.

I have never read a bigger pile of shit in my life. 136 calories in a 40 minute lifting session? I have no idea what kind of strength training the staff of runnersworld considers par for the course, but most people burn 136 calories in 40 minutes taking a nice big dump.

But honestly, is it that shocking to read a piece decrying the benefits of strength training? It's runnersworld. I'd expect a similar vice versa out of T-Nation or any powerlifting magazine. All gigantic holes in reasoning aside, the article lacks the foresight to actually mention the end result of a heavy reliance on running vs. weights.

Famine victims?



Or the nail bending, sledge levering triumph of an old-time strongman.

"Also, it isn't easy to create muscle, a dirty little secret that's rarely discussed. "

Bullfucking shit it isn't. If you eat right and focus on blistering weight workouts, your body will have no other option but to build muscle. This statement is only accurate for people that train and live their lives around the sole premise of wanting to like stick figures.

"But first, eat less."

This is a glaring reminder about how biased this article already is. You cannot attain significant benefits from anaerobic activity without eating more. I mean, come on. This line of thinking is akin to believing that a car engine will still get the same mileage per tank of gasoline if you increase its displacement. A larger engine will need more gas to work, just as a more muscular body will need more food to maintain itself.

"Strength training really is good. It adds variety to your workouts, rarely causes injuries..."

Get on the squat bar and perform a high-volume workout at 90% of your 1 max RM and tell me that the risk for injury is minimal. Again, this article seems to think that half-assing it on the leg press or calf raise is enough to assume that all forms of weight training are, metabolically or calorically speaking, sub-par.

I'm sorry, but this article is crap.

I don't think the article is completely decrying muscle building, it's pointing out that the metabolic advantages muscle claims to have are overstated by obviously biased muscle mags. (And yes, to all the men that have replied--muscle is actually pretty difficult for women to build so just remember there's a whole other gender out there. )

Most scientific studies I've read tend to agree about the amount of calories that muscle burns at rest though. (Muscle mags claim 50-100 calories per pound of muscle, I've seen a range of 10-20 calories in most studies.)

For most people here though either extreme is not relevant. So take it all with a grain of salt.

I wasn't promoting or disagreeing with the article, I just thought it was interesting. Sorry to stir up so much anxiety.

:-/

Again, the truth is somewhere in the between the muscle mags and runners world crap.

Monique, don't apologize for stirring up discussion/debate on a forum! That's what we come here for! It can't all be happy little puppies and bunny rabbits frolicking in a sunny meadow!

But it can certainly be all lolcats.

Monique, I know you didn't take a stance on the article, that's why I never mentioned anything you said, nor did anyone else.

We're just trying to stop the BS train from ever leaving running station, because it's certainly full of coal and steaming...oh fuck this metaphor sucks.

Thank god that metaphor never made it out of the station... it was a wreck before... ugh I can't do anything with it either.

I think what me, Bour and Jericho "take offense" to in the article is how much it understates the benefit of building muscle. It's not all about helping friends move (that also seems kind of tongue in cheek... I personally don't know anyone who ever WANTS to help other people move, so that's not a likely motivator to get anyone to the gym).