If you are working out at a fixed percentage of AT, then why would the total amount of fat burned decrease as your AT increases?
In order to burn the same amount of fat you will constantly have to be doing more exercise, maybe that clarifies?
edit: I should also reiterate, as many have below, you ALSO get the cardio benefit from lifting.
No, that's completely false. It doesn't even make sense.
If not please explain, I'm a bit new to the concept.
Why do you say that? Do you find one hundred push-ups easy?
Edit: Or are you specifically referring to their usefulness for losing weight?
But yes, mostly referring to weight loss.
I can't do 100 pushups right now, but probably about 50-60 (as is obvious I train for strength not stamina). In about a week I could get it up to 100 pretty easily, and I would not be lifting any more weight and I would not be losing any more weight. So beyond being able to do more pushups nothing would really change.
For a beginning trainee, especially a sedentary person trying to get fit, I think that a hundred push-up program is a safe and easy way to start. I certainly don't think such a program is "laughable"; it'll produce noticeable good results in a fairly short period of time. Those gains will hopefully encourage the trainee to begin strength training with free weights.
In general, I personally prefer to be able to do 100 push-ups (one set), 25 pull-ups (one set), 100 sit-ups (one set), and then run 5 miles — resting no more than a couple of minutes in between — and I'm willing to sacrifice some strength gains for it. I'm still working on hitting that goal. :)
30 pushups vs. doing absolutely nothing, yes you will see small results. You will also cap out in < 3 weeks at what you can gain.
Not to be a dick but please do define dramatic.
I would like to incorporate some cardio into to this for heart health though. I was thinking of running on Tuesdays and Thursdays in between my lifting days. Do you think this is a good idea?
Don't you feel your heart pounding after a heavy set of five squats? I'd say that's adequate for "heart health."
If you're worried about staying "fit," you might consider adding in one conditioning day of pushing a sled or running sprints. 5x5 is a lot of volume, though, so I'd be careful with adding in anything extra.
And sure, if you want to play sports on the weekend that's great. See how you feel. If it starts to affect your weight training, then you will have to evaluate it. If you don't care how fast you will make progress in your lifts, and you'd like to play some sports, there's obviously nothing wrong with that. Just understand that a program like Bill Starr's 5x5 is really a program for intermediate lifters, perhaps not intended for people who want to do other activities as well.
Then babies need to fire their personal trainers:
http://personaltrainerbath.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/BA...
http://www.malvernstrength.com/.a/6a00e553cfae8a88340120a4cb...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_X0yQkonFwHQ/SeINrYNoy9I/AAAAAAAAAU...
Saying squats are bad for your knees doesn't really mean anything, and I doubt your orthos would actually know offhand. If you have a question, go look up the relevant studies from the academic literature, and then ask if you don't understand something.
Being fit means different things to different people. Personally if I can't run 10k in under 50 minutes I don't think I'm fit enough (but that's not my only threshold for fitness), but other people will have their own idea of what they consider to be fit.
I did a lot of 5x5 stuff back in high school when I played football so I have some experience. That was 4 years ago though and I must say that I was real sore the first week of this program.
"Don't kid yourself into thinking that exercise, by itself, will make you lose weight. Consider the following activities, and the number of calories an average person burns per hour in each."
It's very targeted at people aiming to lose weight.
Weight loss is very related to overall health, and in many cases very necessary to be healthier (especially us Americans). He also is EXTREMELY focused on saving time, and then proceeds to propose the LEAST time efficient way to get in shape.
No need to be nasty, I read the article.
People lifting five pound weights piss me off, though. You've already gone through the trouble of getting equipment- why not use some equipment that will actually help you?
Cardio is NOT for losing weight. In fact in many cases it actually is very difficult to burn fat while doing lots of cardio because it trains your body to burn the fact more efficiently. This is why you'll see people spend so much time at the gym and get no results. The OP is quite correct that without a serious change in diet coupled with the cardio you will NOT lose weight. Which is exactly why you shouldn't do cardio if you want to lose weight, you may get a small drop in the beginning, but ultimately you will return to a baseline. Pushups etc. are great for warmups, but ultimately these will have very diminishing returns as well (the "100 pushup" style of training is laughable).
If you want to burn fat and lose weight you really need to lift weights, and you need to lift heavy weights. The idea that you can "tone" your muscles with small weights is just ludicrously wrong. You wont turn into a mega-hulk, trust me.
If you want to increase your stamina, your lung capacity and your heart health cardio is absolutely what you should be doing. But also understand that this comes at a cost of diminishing your muscle gains (thus slowing down how quickly you burn your fat).
TLDR: the best way to lose weight is to lift heavy weights in low reps (as heavy as forces you below 10 reps) with moderately short breaks between exercises. Cardio will be an uphill battle to lose weight.
And the best part is you actually get to eat MORE if you are seriously lifting.
Edit: if you want to disagree with me and downvote, at least post a response. I'd love to hear why you think I'm wrong.