You will lose your lean mass if you just do cardio

kirstyg1980

I noticed more body changes as I decreased cardio to focus on more strength training. I don't have flab around my belly and hips anymore like some women who weigh a lot less. I'm happier with my body than I ever thought I would be without reaching my goal weight yet and I think that is mostly because of strength training

Exactly how I feel, in just 4 weeks of lifting heavy

LaMujerMasBonitaDelMundo

I noticed more body changes as I decreased cardio to focus on more strength training. I don't have flab around my belly and hips anymore like some women who weigh a lot less. I'm happier with my body than I ever thought I would be without reaching my goal weight yet and I think that is mostly because of strength training

Me too.

See we need to do both cardio & strength training for our overall health. A lot especially women have confused strength training to only mean heavy weight lifting. Strength training comes in different types such as weight lifting, yoga, pilates, resistance band & body weight exercises. And when you say heavy weight lifting, it doesn't automatically mean those muscle heads lifting barbells or dumbbells 3x of their body weight. It only means that the weight should be challenging enough for your muscles that you can complete in good form up to 6-8 reps & that you should feel the fatigue after the last rep. Cardio can only become catabolic when it is overdone.

carld256

And what was the protein intake, if I may ask?

No idea. I haven't been able to find any real information on the study itself, just lots of references to it.

crisanderson27

And what was the protein intake, if I may ask?

No idea. I haven't been able to find any real information on the study itself, just lots of references to it.

Well, that would be THE critical factor in my opinion. If you're exercising hard, and not getting your protein intake in...it doesn't matter WHAT you're doing, you're going to lose muscle mass.

I can guarantee (or would rather) if they had adequate protein intake, the results wouldn't be the same.

Glucocorticoid

Does anyone have a link to the original Penn State study that's been mentioned? Because this site seems to claim the opposite of what people are saying.

STUDY #1: In this study, conducted at Penn State University, a group of women took part in a 12-week program of diet and exercise [2]. The women were assigned to one of four groups:

• The first group served as a control group, and did nothing.

• Group two followed a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

• Group three combined the same diet with regular aerobic exercise.

• The fourth group also followed the same diet, but added aerobic and resistance exercise (weight training).

As you might imagine, all three groups lost weight.

• The diet-only group lost 13.6 pounds.

• The diet plus aerobic exercise group lost 15 pounds.

• The women combining diet with resistance and aerobic exercise lost 15.4 pounds.

However, the loss of fat was greatest in the women who combined a low-calorie diet with aerobic exercise.

In fact, the women who trained with weights actually lost 3.7 pounds of muscle.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/combo.htm

Did you actually read the study? If you did, you'd see how wrong that interpretation is.

Glucocorticoid

And what was the protein intake, if I may ask?

No idea. I haven't been able to find any real information on the study itself, just lots of references to it.

Well, that would be THE critical factor in my opinion. If you're exercising hard, and not getting your protein intake in...it doesn't matter WHAT you're doing, you're going to lose muscle mass.

I can guarantee (or would rather) if they had adequate protein intake, the results wouldn't be the same.

There's nothing wrong with the study. Here's a quote from the conclusion:

Surprisingly, all dietary groups experienced similar reductions in body mass (−6.2, −6.8, and −7.0 kg for D, DE, and DES groups, respectively) and body composition (−5.8, −8.0, and −4.3% in D, DE, and DES groups, respectively), whereas fat-free mass remained relatively constant (−0.1, +1.4, and −1.7 kg in D, DE, and DES groups, respectively) over the 12-wk period. Our findings of no difference in the magnitude of loss in total body mass, percent fat, and fat mass among dietary groups is in agreement with the results of Ballor and Poehlman (2), who reported in a meta-analysis of 46 studies that exercise training does not influence the loss in body mass, percent fat, or fat mass compared with dietary restriction without exercise. However, the data from the meta-analysis did show that exercise training reduces the percentage of body mass lost as fat-free mass during weight-loss regimens (2). In contrast, our data showed no loss in fat-free mass and no difference among groups. In support of our findings on fat-free mass, a number of studies using various methods of body composition such as magnetic resonance imaging (42, 43), hydrostatic weighing (3, 34), and bioelectric impedance (38) have also reported that the loss in fat-free mass is not only attenuated but maintained or increased when exercise is added to dietary restriction.

Well I take that back, there's plenty of things we need to be aware of with the study - one important point being that caloric/macronutrient intake was NOT controlled.
Nevertheless, the results aren't groundbreaking - they're actually what one would expect.We need to keep in mind the subjects of the study - overweight women with significantly high BF%. It is well documented that you can retain most, if not all, of your LBM in a deficit when you are significantly overfat, despite protein intake not being adequate and despite the lack of an adequate resistance program. As you get leaner, adequate protein intake/resistance program become more and more important. This is something the authors didn't seem to emphasize.

mfpcopine

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

What you've said is what I've read as well.

LadyIntrepid

Personally, I don't want to be a big muscled body builder, but I greatly prefer my higher muscle mass (and higher body fat) look to that of a lower muscle mass that many runners seem to have.



I'm the one in yellow. I prefer my arms and legs over the arms and legs of the two girls ahead of me. I'd love to be as fast as they are, because they cream my *kitten* in races. :embarassed: We're all in the same age group (35-39). They're not skinny fat. They have low body fat, but also a lower muscle mass.

And I'm not all that muscular, as you can see when relaxed in normal clothes. But I'm not anywhere near a "runner's build."

You look terrific!

Glucocorticoid

And what was the protein intake, if I may ask?

No idea. I haven't been able to find any real information on the study itself, just lots of references to it.

Read the actual study - it's free. http://jap.physiology.org/content/83/1/270.full

bcattoes

The reason you see that so many posts on MFP telling us that we will lose muscle if we do cardio only is because there is a large MFP population that comes to these forums from bodybuilding.com and/or other body building sites. You can even see the same catch phrases in many of their posts.

Of course you can keep muscle with cardio only. Muscles that are being worked regularly do not whither away, no matter how you work them.

fatboypup

cardio is KING

crisanderson27

And what was the protein intake, if I may ask?

No idea. I haven't been able to find any real information on the study itself, just lots of references to it.

Well, that would be THE critical factor in my opinion. If you're exercising hard, and not getting your protein intake in...it doesn't matter WHAT you're doing, you're going to lose muscle mass.

I can guarantee (or would rather) if they had adequate protein intake, the results wouldn't be the same.

There's nothing wrong with the study. Here's a quote from the conclusion:

Surprisingly, all dietary groups experienced similar reductions in body mass (−6.2, −6.8, and −7.0 kg for D, DE, and DES groups, respectively) and body composition (−5.8, −8.0, and −4.3% in D, DE, and DES groups, respectively), whereas fat-free mass remained relatively constant (−0.1, +1.4, and −1.7 kg in D, DE, and DES groups, respectively) over the 12-wk period. Our findings of no difference in the magnitude of loss in total body mass, percent fat, and fat mass among dietary groups is in agreement with the results of Ballor and Poehlman (2), who reported in a meta-analysis of 46 studies that exercise training does not influence the loss in body mass, percent fat, or fat mass compared with dietary restriction without exercise. However, the data from the meta-analysis did show that exercise training reduces the percentage of body mass lost as fat-free mass during weight-loss regimens (2). In contrast, our data showed no loss in fat-free mass and no difference among groups. In support of our findings on fat-free mass, a number of studies using various methods of body composition such as magnetic resonance imaging (42, 43), hydrostatic weighing (3, 34), and bioelectric impedance (38) have also reported that the loss in fat-free mass is not only attenuated but maintained or increased when exercise is added to dietary restriction.

Well I take that back, there's plenty of things we need to be aware of with the study - one important point being that caloric/macronutrient intake was NOT controlled.
Nevertheless, the results aren't groundbreaking - they're actually what one would expect.We need to keep in mind the subjects of the study - overweight women with significantly high BF%. It is well documented that you can retain most, if not all, of your LBM in a deficit when you are significantly overfat, despite protein intake not being adequate and despite the lack of an adequate resistance program. As you get leaner, adequate protein intake/resistance program become more and more important. This is something the authors didn't seem to emphasize.

Thanks Kenny...and I agree that makes much more sense. The claims being made (particularly the one in bold) didn't seem realistic to me.

AnninStPaul

I would like to see some scientific proof that you'll lose lean mass or become "skinny fat" by just doing cardio. Honestly, I haven't lifted weights since my early 20's. I've run, done yoga, done martial arts for years... I had a DEXA scan done in 2004 at 29 years of age that showed I have 120 lbs of lean mass and I had one done a few weeks ago that showed the same 120 lbs of lean mass. I haven't lifted a single weight in that time and my diet has been all over the board, two pregnancies... not to mention 8 years have passed.

So... why is it that people are told not to do cardio only? If you already have a decent muscle base, why not just burn off the fat? I don't understand. It seems pretty hard to lose muscle... there was a time I wanted to.

two pregnancies - does that mean you have had small children around the house? that's weightlifting.

nszocinski

Bump

secretlobster

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

Boxing is resistance training which is great for muscle retention, so it sounds like it may not have been the absence of weight training that caused you to lose LBM, but more likely, overworking yourself in your cardio sessions combined with a calorie deficit.

sthrnspirit

bookmark

magerum

I would like to see some scientific proof that you'll lose lean mass or become "skinny fat" by just doing cardio. Honestly, I haven't lifted weights since my early 20's. I've run, done yoga, done martial arts for years... I had a DEXA scan done in 2004 at 29 years of age that showed I have 120 lbs of lean mass and I had one done a few weeks ago that showed the same 120 lbs of lean mass. I haven't lifted a single weight in that time and my diet has been all over the board, two pregnancies... not to mention 8 years have passed.

So... why is it that people are told not to do cardio only? If you already have a decent muscle base, why not just burn off the fat? I don't understand. It seems pretty hard to lose muscle... there was a time I wanted to.

I dont have time to provide links and such but I can tell you this. I lost 160 lbs over the last year with just diet and cardio. My bench max went from 315lbs to 170lbs. Tell me that's not loosing lean body mass.

lastchance2010

This has been very informative and I just learned something...AWESOME!!! :drinker:

Sidesteal

Boxing is resistance training which is great for muscle retention, so it sounds like it may not have been the absence of weight training that caused you to lose LBM, but more likely, overworking yourself in your cardio sessions combined with a calorie deficit.

How is boxing resistance training?

Jacwhite22

I dont have time to provide links and such but I can tell you this. I lost 160 lbs over the last year with just diet and cardio. My bench max went from 315lbs to 170lbs. Tell me that's not loosing lean body mass.

What were you eating? How much protein? Taking a year long break from lifting(regardless of diet) will cause strength loss.......