Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Cardio only in a deficit: Muscle loss?

Options
a45cal
a45cal Posts: 85 Member
I made a statement on someone's thread in the weight loss board which turned into a debate between me and another poster and was sort of hijacking that OP's topic. So I wanted to kick it over here and hopefully get the input of people who're better informed on biological processes/empirical evidence on the topic than I am.

What I said was basically that either only eating in a deficit (with no exercise), or doing so while doing only steady-state cardio (not HIIT) would result in both fat and muscle being burned, and lead to the "skinny-fat" look. (Part of why strength training is suggested to preserve muscle while losing weight.) That's something I feel like I've read a ton of places, including the books of well-respected trainers. And which, purely observationally, seems to make sense.

Another poster felt like that was outdated broscience and that there was no evidence that cardio-only workouts caused/failed to prevent muscle loss. This prompted me to look for studies on the subject, but my search came up empty. I don't know if I was using the wrong search terms or what, but I couldn't seem to find any studies which had even addressed the topic.

Does anyone know of empirical evidence which either supports or debunks this idea? It's frustrating to think you "know" something and only have sources like "some guy writing an article on T-Nation" as evidence. (Or to just be wrong and not know it.)
«1

Replies

  • cityruss
    cityruss Posts: 2,493 Member
    Options
    I was under the impression there's always muscle loss in a deficit no matter what you do, it's just the level of loss that changes.

    Also, if you don't use it, you lose it.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    a45cal wrote: »
    I made a statement on someone's thread in the weight loss board which turned into a debate between me and another poster and was sort of hijacking that OP's topic. So I wanted to kick it over here and hopefully get the input of people who're better informed on biological processes/empirical evidence on the topic than I am.

    What I said was basically that either only eating in a deficit (with no exercise), or doing so while doing only steady-state cardio (not HIIT) would result in both fat and muscle being burned, and lead to the "skinny-fat" look. (Part of why strength training is suggested to preserve muscle while losing weight.) That's something I feel like I've read a ton of places, including the books of well-respected trainers. And which, purely observationally, seems to make sense.

    Another poster felt like that was outdated broscience and that there was no evidence that cardio-only workouts caused/failed to prevent muscle loss. This prompted me to look for studies on the subject, but my search came up empty. I don't know if I was using the wrong search terms or what, but I couldn't seem to find any studies which had even addressed the topic.

    Does anyone know of empirical evidence which either supports or debunks this idea? It's frustrating to think you "know" something and only have sources like "some guy writing an article on T-Nation" as evidence. (Or to just be wrong and not know it.)

    Well, do you accept animal studies?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2228403
  • mecoconleche
    mecoconleche Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    I haven't looked at studies myself, but I remember someone said (Eric helmes?) that weight training is an adaptive stimulus, and it kinda forces your body to not use muscle as a source of energy.

    Meaning, you take that stimulus away, and the adaptive component goes away too
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    cityruss wrote: »
    I was under the impression there's always muscle loss in a deficit no matter what you do, it's just the level of loss that changes.

    Also, if you don't use it, you lose it.

    That's what I thought as well; there will always be some muscle loss with weight loss.
  • EricNewark
    EricNewark Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    I would say it's true. I did almost all cardio for a year and lost over 80lbs total and I can tell I lost some muscle. I kept telling myself to lift and then gym didn't happen so I'd hit the neighborhood for walks and some sprints. Two years later I have noticeable muscle and strength loss.

    Starting to eat maintenance and plus on alternate weeks and lift more now but wish I'd done it to begin with now. At 46 it's going to be even harder now to gain muscle mass.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Several posters above have already made good points, which I won't parrot. The tl;dr answer is "it depends".

    Although he's speaking of bulking rather than cutting in this instance, here's an article by Lyle McDonald which offers some insight into the pros and cons of cardio relative to muscle gain (and some of the involved factors):

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/cardio-and-mass-gains.html/
  • niallcavanagh
    niallcavanagh Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    EricNewark wrote: »
    I would say it's true. I did almost all cardio for a year and lost over 80lbs total and I can tell I lost some muscle. I kept telling myself to lift and then gym didn't happen so I'd hit the neighborhood for walks and some sprints. Two years later I have noticeable muscle and strength loss.

    Starting to eat maintenance and plus on alternate weeks and lift more now but wish I'd done it to begin with now. At 46 it's going to be even harder now to gain muscle mass.

    At 48 (next week) I agree... but I for me the hardest part of it is finding the time as life and work make more demands than when I bulked up in my 20s. My wife doesn't approve of my calorie logging, so I have to slip it in on the fly. I only use it to keep a daily track anyway... if I overeat one day, I don't try to cut extra the next... I just work on from where I am at.

    That is why I find it much easier to train at home in the early morning while the rest of the family are asleep. I can get it done then go to work, without wasting time commuting to the gymn as well as commuting to work!

    BTW... the good news is that at 46 I actually gained a lot of muscle mass quite easily when doing sprint swims every morning.



  • EricNewark
    EricNewark Posts: 295 Member
    Options
    Awesome so there is some hope. Lol

    Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.

    I know... I know it's all excuses :)
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Options
    EricNewark wrote: »
    Awesome so there is some hope. Lol

    Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.

    I know... I know it's all excuses :)

    Make your health and body your priority and you'll be surprised how many opportunities there are. 20 minutes is really not that far in the grand scheme of thing and I'm sure there are gyms near your work or en route home.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    EricNewark wrote: »
    Awesome so there is some hope. Lol

    Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.

    I know... I know it's all excuses :)

    Make your health and body your priority and you'll be surprised how many opportunities there are. 20 minutes is really not that far in the grand scheme of thing and I'm sure there are gyms near your work or en route home.

    Pretty much this.
    To paraphrase Jim Wendler a bit, you give 8-12 hours per day to your boss. You give god knows how much to your family. Isn't it about time you started giving some to yourself? It's not like it would be being dithered away either. You'd be reinvesting that time into improving the only thing you ever truly own: yourself.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    EricNewark wrote: »
    Awesome so there is some hope. Lol

    Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.

    I know... I know it's all excuses :)

    Is it 20 minutes measuring from home or work? I ask because I find it easiest way to get in a workout to go right before or after work, and with that having something close to work (or on the way between the two) would be useful. (I'm lucky that I have something super close, so can also go at lunch.)
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    EricNewark wrote: »
    Awesome so there is some hope. Lol

    Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.

    I know... I know it's all excuses :)

    If you watch regular tv, you can do some quick walking during the commercials. Shows usually have 15-20 minutes worth of ads.
  • Reedthebigguy
    Reedthebigguy Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Not sure if your right or wrong, but as for me it seemed like I wasn't losing weight and rebuilding muscle. Because I was into bodybuilding until age 42 and then stopped because of a stroke (T.I.A.). But as I got older and heavier I returned to gym 20 yrs. later. I was hitting the gym 4 times a week and I was walking and biking along with strength training, but low weights. I was losing body fat, but weight didn't come down. I became discourage the Dr. told me I was rebuilding muscle that's way no weight lose. So I guess if your not doing strength training you may lose muscle along with fat.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Azdak wrote: »
    This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).

    Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339

    I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.

    I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.

    Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

    This one is a lot older than your study but it demonstrates roughly the same thing.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Azdak wrote: »
    This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).

    Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339

    I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.

    I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.

    Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

    This one is a lot older than your study but it demonstrates roughly the same thing.

    But it also says that that the C+D group doing walking, biking and stair climbing, lost significantly more total body weight than the resistance group. Too bad the abstract doesn't say how much more.