Bad information

liftingbro

mmapags wrote: »

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

The discussion of muscle building and calorie burns yesterday got me interested in revisiting the research on this topic but I was away from my computer. So, back this morning and did a little research on the topic.

First,

This last part is factually incorrect. It is proven, go look up the studies, that you burn more calories over the next 72hrs when you lift than when you do cardio. You burn fewer in the session, though as I stated super setting can mitigate a lot of the difference, but metabolism is raised over the next 72hrs.

On this topic I hit the mother lode with a meta-analysis of 16 studies and 155 participants. Note the low calorie burns and shorter EPOC durations across multiple studies. Between set rest intervals and work volume had the 2 highest impacts on POC.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/825026/

From the conclusions (bold added by me for emphasis):

The included studies indicate that RT may help increasing EPOC and EE, even though some of the differences in the EPOC between resistance exercises with different methodology may seem very small from a practical perspective. However, any additional caloric expenditure following exercise may contribute to long-term weight management. It must be remembered that weight-control benefits of EPOC should happen over a significant time period. Thus, even acknowledging that the EPOC induced by a single exercise session would not represent a great impact on overall EE, the cumulative effect of sequential RT sessions may be relevant in the context of long-term programs.

Also, a search of multiple studies on PubMed showed a range of EPOC of 6% to 15%. No evidence of durations as long as 72 hours appeared. Quite opposite as confirmed by the meta-analysis above.

Also, yes, at rest one pound of muscle doesn't burn that many calories but the story changes when you are doing physical activities. You have to consider that. Yes, if you sit there and do nothing muscle doesn't burn much more but when contracted under weight, yes it does. The point is that when you add muscle , lift weights (or really anything else that physical) you will burn significantly more calories during the exercise.

Searching both a wildcard search and PubMed, I found no evidence for calorie burn increases other than at rest. No evidence of increased burns by adding muscle mass when exercising. If anyone has evidence in the form of studies on this topic, I would be very interested in seeing them.

I'm in agreement that EPOC while definitely a thing is overhyped in infomercials. If we assume the 7% mentioned by @liftingbro is reasonable and can be verified by scientific study, it's still too small to be measurable in real life IMO due to inaccuracies in all the other inputs, calories in (labels allow a certain margin of error), exercise calorie burn, NEAT, etc

I guess I wonder why you bolded the part about EPOC induced by a single exercise session as not a great impact instead of the part about the cumulative effect of sequential RT sessions. I don't know many people who resistance train for a single exercise session then quite, aside from resolutioners (tongue in cheek joke).

Bottom line, IMO resistance training is good for the vast majority of people for health. After all we all want the strength to get off the toilet in old age. EPOC is just a bonus, regardless of how much it is.

From your post:
The included studies indicate that RT may help increasing EPOC and EE, even though some of the differences in the EPOC between resistance exercises with different methodology may seem very small from a practical perspective. However, any additional caloric expenditure following exercise may contribute to long-term weight management. It must be remembered that weight-control benefits of EPOC should happen over a significant time period. Thus, even acknowledging that the EPOC induced by a single exercise session would not represent a great impact on overall EE, the cumulative effect of sequential RT sessions may be relevant in the context of long-term programs.

RE; The bolded points above, we are in complete agreement. It is overhyped, too small to measure in real life and to isolate. If we used @liftingbro's example; 7% in a person with 2000 cal RMR, that is probably within logging error ratio for that person and calorically represent about 1 extra cookie per day. And as you say, it's just a bonus. I also don't think many people have an RMR of 2000. Mine is 1765 as calculated. I am a 180 lb man who gets both cardio in the form of lots of walking and strength training 3x per week. For lighter people, men or women, it's going to be less. If you have a RMR of 2000, you probably have a TDEE of 2800 to 3000.

So, the benefit of that 140 extra calories if RMR is not that significant in terms of daily energy accounting. That has been the reason for my counter posts in this thread. I feel the calorie burning benefits of RT are being oversold, as I've stated a couple of times.

Is resistance training a great idea? Hell yeah!. But dietary control is going to be the far bigger factor in terms of fat loss. Philosophically and to put it simply, I am a proponent of RT for body composition and fitness and a fan of calorie deficit for fat loss. Do they have somewhat of a symbiotic relationship. Sure. But let's keep it in perspective as you have done above in your post.

I never said that calorie burn was the main reason to do RT. It was clearly for body composition, in my posts. I was giving the OP several points on why RT is good and I would say if you can burn and extra 100 calories a day while at rest that's a positive bonus. It's a better than parking your car farther away at work every day in order to raise NEAT. That extra 7% is about the same as walking a mile for most people. So I believe that is significant. I wouldn't be tracking that or adding another 100 calories into my intake or anything like that but it's positive metabolically speaking.

And again this was giving the OP the Cardio vs RT debate, which I feel like the metabolic affect of RT is relevant. It's a small plus in the side of RT but a plus none the less.