weight lifting and weight loss. what's the evidence?

dbrightwell1270

Hi all.

I read the forums often and see a theme of heavy lifting is good because it assists weight loss by burning fat while maintaining muscle. It is preferable to cardiovascular exercise because cardio leads to a reduction in both fat loss and the loss of lean body mass. Additional claims are that in all but a few circumstances, a person cannot gain muscle while eating at a Caloric deficit (One of those circumstances being that the person is new to lifting). Then I come across this study:

http://www.mooshema.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/J-Appl-Physiol-2012-Willis-1831-7.pdf

This study is far from perfect and far from definitive. I don't consider the the resistance training used in this study to be "heavy lifting." It was 8 machines with participants doing 3 sets of 8-12 reps on each machine. I am not visualizing compound lifts.

In fact, I disagree with the researchers' overall conclusion to advocate for aerobic training because its fat loss is greater than that of resistance training and comparable to combined aerobic and resistance training while requiring less time. While the weight and fat loss of the combined training and the aerobic training are statistically different from zero (meaning if there was no weight loss the observed weight change outcomes would be expected to occur one time in twenty or less), the losses are approximately 3.5-4 pounds over several months. My overall take away is that from a policy perspective it would be better to advocate reducing Calorie intake. That is, the time devoted to exercise by these study participants lead to such small weight loss that they would have been better off reducing their Calorie intake such that there was a 250-500 Calorie per day deficit (or you can't out exercise a bad diet.)

What I did find interesting is that the aerobic training group lost only .1 kg of lean body mass on average and the loss was not statistically significant from zero. This seems contrary to the general theme I read about that indicates that cadio leads to a loss of lean body mass. The other interesting thing is that the combined group gained lean body mass, lost weight and lost fat. At first I thought this was contrary but the group in this study was overweight to obese males and females who have no history of exercise (along with a few other criteria). It could be that these participants experienced the "noob gains" that are often mentioned. The final point is that the researchers found that while the overall fat loss of the combined training group was greater than the aerobic group, the difference in fat loss was not statistically significantly different from zero. (I am not sure they used the correct alternative hypothesis. Unfortunately, the article didn't include a table with the pairwise ANOVA results, so I can't determine one-sided alternative would have lead to a different conclusion about differences in fat loss.)

Like I said before, this is one study. It's far from perfect and far from definitive. No study on its own will be definitive and perfect ending the debate once and for all. I am more interested in actually reading other studies and making judgments of the recommended studies conclusions myself than I am in reading a press release about the study where the researchers give their interpretations and tell how great their work is compared to everything that's been done in the past. To that end, what are some of the seminal works concluding that heavy lifting is good (or better) for weight loss/fat loss than aerobic conditioning? What are some of the leading works that conclude that heavy lifting leads to less lean body mass loss than aerobic training when either are combined with Calorie deficits? I am also not looking to bias my readings to things that conclude that heavy lifting is better. If you are aware of studies that conclude aerobic exercise or a combination of lifting and aerobic exercise is better I'd like to know about that too.

Thanks to all for reading to this point. I look forward to reading your responses and any research findings you can cite.

BrianSharpe

Thanks for the link, an interesting read.

dbrightwell1270

bump.

55in13

I don't have a different study to cite, but I strongly agree with you about diet. My exercise may vary in intensity and duration from day to day, but I will eat every day. The variation in intensity is an interesting aside in the discussion. One of the reasons I like running is that it is so specifically measurable. Moving 170 pounds 6 miles in 60 minutes has a clearly defined component of work performed. There are no breaks. Calories burned from it are still an estimate, but using various calculators I am pretty sure the burn is close to 750. I doubt I have ever burned more than 500 calories in an hour at the gym. It is possible to do it, I just doubt I have. I think few people do. I don't have data to back this up, but it is my firm belief that the cycle of higher intensity like heavy lifting with short intervals of rest will end up averaging out to less burn than constant aerobic exercise for most people. I bolded that for emphasis because someone who lifts a lot can argue that they do it all the time and may well be correct. I think aerobic will win out for most people because they will actually exercise the entire time.

jacksonpt

Hi all.

I read the forums often and see a theme of heavy lifting is good because it assists weight loss by burning fat while maintaining muscle. It is preferable to cardiovascular exercise because cardio leads to a reduction in both fat loss and the loss of lean body mass. Additional claims are that in all but a few circumstances, a person cannot gain muscle while eating at a Caloric deficit (One of those circumstances being that the person is new to lifting). Then I come across this study:

http://www.mooshema.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/J-Appl-Physiol-2012-Willis-1831-7.pdf

This study is far from perfect and far from definitive. I don't consider the the resistance training used in this study to be "heavy lifting." It was 8 machines with participants doing 3 sets of 8-12 reps on each machine. I am not visualizing compound lifts.

In fact, I disagree with the researchers' overall conclusion to advocate for aerobic training because its fat loss is greater than that of resistance training and comparable to combined aerobic and resistance training while requiring less time. While the weight and fat loss of the combined training and the aerobic training are statistically different from zero (meaning if there was no weight loss the observed weight change outcomes would be expected to occur one time in twenty or less), the losses are approximately 3.5-4 pounds over several months. My overall take away is that from a policy perspective it would be better to advocate reducing Calorie intake. That is, the time devoted to exercise by these study participants lead to such small weight loss that they would have been better off reducing their Calorie intake such that there was a 250-500 Calorie per day deficit (or you can't out exercise a bad diet.)

What I did find interesting is that the aerobic training group lost only .1 kg of lean body mass on average and the loss was not statistically significant from zero. This seems contrary to the general theme I read about that indicates that cadio leads to a loss of lean body mass. The other interesting thing is that the combined group gained lean body mass, lost weight and lost fat. At first I thought this was contrary but the group in this study was overweight to obese males and females who have no history of exercise (along with a few other criteria). It could be that these participants experienced the "noob gains" that are often mentioned. The final point is that the researchers found that while the overall fat loss of the combined training group was greater than the aerobic group, the difference in fat loss was not statistically significantly different from zero. (I am not sure they used the correct alternative hypothesis. Unfortunately, the article didn't include a table with the pairwise ANOVA results, so I can't determine one-sided alternative would have lead to a different conclusion about differences in fat loss.)

Like I said before, this is one study. It's far from perfect and far from definitive. No study on its own will be definitive and perfect ending the debate once and for all. I am more interested in actually reading other studies and making judgments of the recommended studies conclusions myself than I am in reading a press release about the study where the researchers give their interpretations and tell how great their work is compared to everything that's been done in the past. To that end, what are some of the seminal works concluding that heavy lifting is good (or better) for weight loss/fat loss than aerobic conditioning? What are some of the leading works that conclude that heavy lifting leads to less lean body mass loss than aerobic training when either are combined with Calorie deficits? I am also not looking to bias my readings to things that conclude that heavy lifting is better. If you are aware of studies that conclude aerobic exercise or a combination of lifting and aerobic exercise is better I'd like to know about that too.

Thanks to all for reading to this point. I look forward to reading your responses and any research findings you can cite.

This is because far too many people on this site

A) Don't know what the hell they are talking about, but rather regurgitating something they think they read before
People don't give any context to frame their comments
C) People speak in absolutes because it's easier, they are lazy, or they think it's more helpful

D) All of the above.

As with most any other blanket statement made on this site, to simply state that cardio = muscle loss is wrong. Or at the very least, misleading. Can it under certain circumstances? Yes. Does it for everyone? No, and certainly not to any meaningful extent.

It's trendy now to tell people to eat more and lift heavy. That seems to be the default answer to every post regardless of the question or the person's situation/goals. In some cases it's good advice. But even so, it rarely addresses the real issue because so few people take the time to flush out the OP's actual goals, limitations, etc. before offering advice.

Sorry, getting sidetracked now.

*steps down off soapbox*

Azdak

<Steps up on soapbox, now that it's open>

Don't have time to go into detail, but a couple of quick comments:

1. First--you are kind of starting off with a false premise, i.e.:

heavy lifting is good because it assists weight loss by burning fat while maintaining muscle. It is preferable to cardiovascular exercise because cardio leads to a reduction in both fat loss and the loss of lean body mass.

This is not accepted science. This is ideological posturing. It happens to be a current fad on the internet and in the popular fitness media, because it is "questions conventional wisdom" and it's easier to make money selling weight lifting and "metabolic training" than it is cardio.

2. That particular paper comes from the STRRIDE study at Duke University. They have published several papers from the research data. It was well-constructed and feature one of the larger sample sizes for any studies of this type.It is not so easily dismissed.

3. There are so many variables involved when it comes to exercise and weight loss, that it is pointless to take any simple, linear, "one size fits all", binary, good/bad, right/wrong position. There is a "best fit" approach of sensible calorie restriction, sensible macronutrient ratios, exercise--including cardio and reistance training, and generally increased casual activity, that has been shown to work very well for the vast majority of people.

However, that approach is not the ONLY path to success, nor is it the best approach for ALL people. Exercise research is like trying to put together a 10,000 piece puzzle. Each study is a piece and you try to fit them together. After awhile a general sense of the big picture starts to emerge, even if you can't see all the details or know how all the pieces fit together. And not everything is as it seems at first--sometimes you think you are working on a section of flowers, but then a couple more pieces are found and your realize it's a baboon's butt.

dbmata

In for the hyperbolic claims of ideological posturing.

I'm going to go make some popcorn and settle in to watch people get downright polite with each other.

dbrightwell1270

<Steps up on soapbox, now that it's open>

Don't have time to go into detail, but a couple of quick comments:

1. First--you are kind of starting off with a false premise, i.e.:

heavy lifting is good because it assists weight loss by burning fat while maintaining muscle. It is preferable to cardiovascular exercise because cardio leads to a reduction in both fat loss and the loss of lean body mass.

This is not accepted science. This is ideological posturing. It happens to be a current fad on the internet and in the popular fitness media, because it is "questions conventional wisdom" and it's easier to make money selling weight lifting and "metabolic training" than it is cardio.

I want to distance myself from that claim a bit. I am not attempting to make any claims about weightlifting or aerobic exercise. I was attempting to summarize what I routinely see on the forums. I guess I should say I was attempting to summarize my overall impression of what I routinely read on these forums.

I am not trying to advocate for one over the other. I lift, I run, bike or walk regularly too. I like it and probably won't change what I do. I am merely asking for citations to any studies that support claims of either aerobic training, resistance based training, or a combination of the two as a preferable means to lose weight and/or fat.

Azdak

<Steps up on soapbox, now that it's open>

Don't have time to go into detail, but a couple of quick comments:

1. First--you are kind of starting off with a false premise, i.e.:

heavy lifting is good because it assists weight loss by burning fat while maintaining muscle. It is preferable to cardiovascular exercise because cardio leads to a reduction in both fat loss and the loss of lean body mass.

This is not accepted science. This is ideological posturing. It happens to be a current fad on the internet and in the popular fitness media, because it is "questions conventional wisdom" and it's easier to make money selling weight lifting and "metabolic training" than it is cardio.

I want to distance myself from that claim a bit. I am not attempting to make any claims about weightlifting or aerobic exercise. I was attempting to summarize what I routinely see on the forums. I guess I should say I was attempting to summarize my overall impression of what I routinely read on these forums.

I am not trying to advocate for one over the other. I lift, I run, bike or walk regularly too. I like it and probably won't change what I do. I am merely asking for citations to any studies that support claims of either aerobic training, resistance based training, or a combination of the two as a preferable means to lose weight and/or fat.

To clarify, I understood you were "representing" and my comment was directed toward the premise, not you in particular. That wasn't clear enough--hastily written, since I didn't want to hog the soapbox....

jaweiss1

Thank you for posting the link to the J Appl Physiol paper. It is a nicely constructed study and the results are very interesting and as someone said, not easily dismissed.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the participants in the study were not required to meet any caloric requirements, and as far as I can tell, they were not running a caloric deficit. So they were not attempting to lose weight through diet The relative results between AT, AT/RT and RT might be quite different in the context of say an enforced 10% caloric deficit.

Cheers,

Jeff