You will lose your lean mass if you just do cardio

Options
2456

Replies

  • HappilyLifts
    HappilyLifts Posts: 429 Member
    Options
    bump. Really interesting, need to read more than once to digest.
  • FlyeredUp
    FlyeredUp Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    Penn State did a study and found that 22% ( on average) of a persons total weight loss will be made up of lean muscle if they only do cardio and not lift weights during their weight loss. This why most people who just do cardio while losing weight are not happy with their results even after they reach or surpass their goal.

    I would wager a guess that this study involved a low calorie diet too.
    What do you consider to be a "" low calorie diet"" and how much do you want to lose??
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    Here's my N=1 example.

    Went from 210lbs to 154lbs in 9 months. Calorie controlled diet with approximately 150g protein averaged for day. Exercise choices was jogging, boxing & some bodyweight resistance exercise.

    I went from fat to skinny fat. I know I lost a LOT of LBM. (no dexa scans or anything but by the end I could only bench 110lbs 1rm, which I previously did sets of 10 of) If I had my choice again, I would have done it slower and included resistance training from the start.

    So for me, cardio only (even though I did do some other resistance training) definitely resulted in a large loss of LBM. I really wish I had a pic of me when I was twig skinny fat but unsurprisingly, not many photos taken in that time period :tongue:
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    Without defining how much cardio, at what intensity, etc., (and also looking at the rest of the training/diet/individual variance) the debate is meaningless . Cardio can even benefits when you are trying to gain muscle.
  • michellekicks
    michellekicks Posts: 3,624 Member
    Options
    Penn State did a study and found that 22% ( on average) of a persons total weight loss will be made up of lean muscle if they only do cardio and not lift weights during their weight loss. This why most people who just do cardio while losing weight are not happy with their results even after they reach or surpass their goal.

    I would wager a guess that this study involved a low calorie diet too.
    What do you consider to be a "" low calorie diet"" and how much do you want to lose??

    I consider a low calorie diet eating anything less than BMR.

    If I lose 20 more lbs without sacrificing lean mass, I'll be 20%BF and thrilled.
  • appi1981
    appi1981 Posts: 45
    Options
    I lost all my bulk mass with running now stepping back up on the weights as partner says i look to skinny as before i was stocky i still cycle and train muay Thai but i agree would rather of lost the bulk slower and done a lot more weights
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    Interesting replies. My personal experiences tend to correspond with the post Chris made...but it's nice to hear all of the commentary.
  • Erica_theRedhead
    Erica_theRedhead Posts: 724 Member
    Options
    Also keep in mind that many people on here are overweight or obese, and lived a relatively sedative lifestyle before starting this jounrey. You may be in shape and have decent muscle mass, but many here do not. Doing strictly cardio will not build muscle or tone them. We need to mix up lifting and metabolic workouts to become stronger and healthier. Also, the more muscle mass we create will burn more calories. I can achieve the same calorie burn with a 30 minute, high intensity metabolic workout or a 60 minute run. I like running to challenge myself, but I'd much rather knock out a good strength/resistance workout. It's all personal preference, and what would work best to get you to your personal goal.
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    Yes but adding muscle will not burn a significant amount of extra calories.
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    Options
    Yes but adding muscle will not burn a significant amount of extra calories.

    ur kidding right? its the largest metabolic booster there is..
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
  • monty619
    monty619 Posts: 1,308 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
    yeh i can tell you from putting on muscle first hand... its more than 6 calories a day. ive read studies that it is upwards of 50-100 more calories per lb of muscle a day than 1lb of fat does, but from my experience i can eat much more than i used to... and even if it was only 6 extra calories is there anything else that increases the metabolic rate more than muscle mass does?

    if anything its anaerobic exercise, and that goes hand in hand with muscle mass..
  • moochachip
    moochachip Posts: 237 Member
    Options
    It feels like balance has been thrown out the window now with fitness - it always seems people are extreme-cardio, or extreme-weight lifting.

    I prefer doing both.
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
    yeh i can tell you from putting on muscle first hand... its more than 6 calories a day. ive read studies that it is upwards of 50-100 more calories per lb of muscle a day than 1lb of fat does, but from my experience i can eat much more than i used to... and even if it was only 6 extra calories is there anything else that increases the metabolic rate more than muscle mass does?

    if anything its anaerobic exercise, and that goes hand in hand with muscle mass..

    Right, the studies that you are thinking of are outdated - what I posted is more recent.
    I realize that 30-40 cal/lb of muscle is still the common belief (despite it being wrong), but it's better than what used to be spread (100 cal/lb).

    In terms of fat loss, the benefits of weight training are more indirect - it's more to do with what happens during the weight training bout, and afterwards (glycogen depletion and the calories needed to synthesize the muscle and the training needed to maintain that muscle later on). But as far as raising metabolic rate, adding on muscle is negligible.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
    yeh i can tell you from putting on muscle first hand... its more than 6 calories a day. ive read studies that it is upwards of 50-100 more calories per lb of muscle a day than 1lb of fat does, but from my experience i can eat much more than i used to... and even if it was only 6 extra calories is there anything else that increases the metabolic rate more than muscle mass does?

    if anything its anaerobic exercise, and that goes hand in hand with muscle mass..

    Right, the studies that you are thinking of are outdated - what I posted is more recent.
    I realize that 30-40 cal/lb of muscle is still the common belief (despite it being wrong), but it's better than what used to be spread (100 cal/lb).

    In terms of fat loss, the benefits of weight training are more indirect - it's more to do with what happens during the weight training bout, and afterwards (glycogen depletion and the calories needed to synthesize the muscle and the training needed to maintain that muscle later on). But as far as raising metabolic rate, adding on muscle is negligible.

    You forgot hormonal response, which goes far beyond glycogen depletion and calories.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    Options
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html


    Linking this as Lyle is also backing the idea of muscle burning about 6cals/lb.
  • Glucocorticoid
    Glucocorticoid Posts: 867 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
    yeh i can tell you from putting on muscle first hand... its more than 6 calories a day. ive read studies that it is upwards of 50-100 more calories per lb of muscle a day than 1lb of fat does, but from my experience i can eat much more than i used to... and even if it was only 6 extra calories is there anything else that increases the metabolic rate more than muscle mass does?

    if anything its anaerobic exercise, and that goes hand in hand with muscle mass..

    Right, the studies that you are thinking of are outdated - what I posted is more recent.
    I realize that 30-40 cal/lb of muscle is still the common belief (despite it being wrong), but it's better than what used to be spread (100 cal/lb).

    In terms of fat loss, the benefits of weight training are more indirect - it's more to do with what happens during the weight training bout, and afterwards (glycogen depletion and the calories needed to synthesize the muscle and the training needed to maintain that muscle later on). But as far as raising metabolic rate, adding on muscle is negligible.

    You forgot hormonal response, which goes far beyond glycogen depletion and calories.
    Can you elaborate? What are you referring to specifically?
  • jbennett74857
    jbennett74857 Posts: 6
    Options
    Well said Azdak!
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Options
    Adding on muscle does increase metabolic rate - just not to any significant degree. The study below shows that adding on one pound of muscle means you burn an additional 6 calories per day. Gaining 10 pounds of muscle (which is not something that will happen overnight) means you burn an additional 60 calories per day.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11224660
    yeh i can tell you from putting on muscle first hand... its more than 6 calories a day. ive read studies that it is upwards of 50-100 more calories per lb of muscle a day than 1lb of fat does, but from my experience i can eat much more than i used to... and even if it was only 6 extra calories is there anything else that increases the metabolic rate more than muscle mass does?

    if anything its anaerobic exercise, and that goes hand in hand with muscle mass..

    Right, the studies that you are thinking of are outdated - what I posted is more recent.
    I realize that 30-40 cal/lb of muscle is still the common belief (despite it being wrong), but it's better than what used to be spread (100 cal/lb).

    In terms of fat loss, the benefits of weight training are more indirect - it's more to do with what happens during the weight training bout, and afterwards (glycogen depletion and the calories needed to synthesize the muscle and the training needed to maintain that muscle later on). But as far as raising metabolic rate, adding on muscle is negligible.

    You forgot hormonal response, which goes far beyond glycogen depletion and calories.
    Can you elaborate? What are you referring to specifically?

    I'm talking about growth hormone, adrenalin, etc. I'm on my phone at the moment so I'm not going to go into great detail, but you can look at this:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2796409

    For the uninformed (very simplified), growth hormone...among other things...is basically a sign post for your body to burn fat (sort of like nitrous oxide in a car, only for fat burning), and maintain lean mass. What this means in even more simplified terms, is that strength training tells your body to release hormones that keeps your body burning fat specifically. Again, this goes way beyond simple calories in vs calories out, or the other things you mentioned.
  • CalJur
    CalJur Posts: 627 Member
    Options
    These type of forums always make me laugh. Cardio versus strength in some form or fashion. Peeps the bottom line is do you. If what you are doing works for you and you like the results then f what others may say or think. What I have noticed is that peeps tend to want to elevate what they do best over what someone else does best. Just do you and do it well. For my own dime I believe a mix of cardio and strength is good for cross training purposes and keeps your workouts fresh. A mix also avoids a fitness plateau. I guess its human nature to elevate what you do best.

Categories