Is aerobic exercise better than anaerobic exercise

Of course there is no absolute good or bad. The criterion for judging is never the type of exercise, but your current needs, physical condition and even your energy level that day.

There are a lot of friends around me who have lost weight through aerobics. My former colleague weighed 180 pounds before and did not dare to do strength training for fear of hurting his knees. He walked briskly around the park for 40 minutes after get off work every day and occasionally did low-intensity exercises. He lost 32 pounds in half a year and his fatty liver was gone. If you ask him, he will definitely say that aerobics is really good. Especially for novices who are new to sports, people with a large base, or people with chronic diseases such as high blood pressure and diabetes, the aerobic threshold is low and the risks are small. You can feel the positive feedback when you start. Walking around for two laps will make you sweat a little, and the whole person will be refreshed. It is good for the heart and lungs. The improvement and adjustment of daily metabolism are also immediate. My aunt used to have unstable blood sugar. The doctor asked her to walk for half an hour after meals every day for three months. Now her fasting blood sugar is basically within the normal range. She now tells everyone that walking is more effective than taking medicine.

But if you go to the gymnasium and say this, there is a high chance that the veterans will roll their eyes. I used to know a guy who had been training for four years. At the beginning, he only lost weight by running. After running for three months, he lost 15 pounds. The flesh on his waist was still very soft, and he still looked fat when wearing clothes. Later, he practiced strength with a friend and controlled his diet. He lost 6% of his body fat in three months, and his abdominal muscles were clearly defined. Now when he talks about it, he complains that he made a big detour when he only did aerobics. After all, the growth of muscle mass can only rely on resistance training. If you have more muscle, your basal metabolism will increase. Even if you eat the same thing every day, you will be less likely to gain weight than those who only do aerobics. Moreover, strength training can strengthen bone density and joint stability, which is difficult to cover with aerobic alone. Whether you have enough muscle mass after you get older is directly related to whether you can prevent falls and whether your quality of life is high.

In fact, people who have been exercising for a long time will not worry about who is better than who, and most of them will follow their own needs. I've been to extremes before, either running five kilometers every day for three months. My cardio and lung training was good, but I had to take two breaks to carry 20 kilograms of rice up to the fifth floor. Later, I concentrated on training for strength, and my muscles grew a bit. The last time I went to climb a mountain in the countryside with my friends, I couldn't breathe for half an hour. It took me a long time to catch up. Now I do two 30-minute night runs between my three strength training sessions a week. I also go for a bike ride and climb mountains when I have free time on weekends. Whether it’s a deadlift PR or a hike with friends, I’m not afraid.

You don’t have to decide what you must do. If you have been working overtime recently until you feel dizzy and don’t even have the energy to change into fitness clothes after get off work, then walking around the neighborhood for 20 minutes of light aerobics is better than slumping on the sofa and scrolling through your phone. If you are energetic that day and want to feel good, you can do strength training for an hour, and the feeling of relaxation cannot be given by walking slowly. There is no need to argue about who is better than another. Exercise is originally based on people's needs. If you can persist, feel comfortable after doing it, and achieve the desired results, then it is the best exercise for you.