Running, not weights, burns fat :/

meshashesha2012

A calorie deficit burns fat, however you want to get that calorie deficit.

Weights have benefits
Running has different benefits

They both are beneficial.

this needs to be repeated

drmerc

Weights have always had that opinion because it creates tone and definition, making you believe you've cut the fat when usually it is building the muscle that is already there. Running burns fat by increasing your heart rate because it's a cardio workout.

Over all I don't think your heart burns enough calories to make a difference being elevated

taso42

This makes about as much sense as saying, "Stirring, not heat cooks soup"

mustgetmuscles1

To say running or any form of exercise "burns fat" is not entirely accurate. They burn CALORIES. Some of those calories come from fat some from other sources depending on a lot of factors. You can compare one type, speed, intensity of exercise to another and see some differences and then say one is superior to the other but that is where people run into trouble.

Exercise burns calories.

Calories deficit causes "weight" loss. Notice I didnt say fat loss? What percentage of that weight loss is body fat and what is lean body mass? Diet and exercise are going to play a huge role in that.

Some exercises promote the retention of lean body mass and some dont. So if you want to ensure the weight loss from your calorie deficit is a more body fat than lean mass, is running a better or worse exercise than resistance training?

Do both.

sylviatx

You look lovely. Good work!

Enigmatica

I dropped from 220 to 120 with walking as my exercise of choice. I mostly jog now because I enjoy it. I'm just not going to deal with the typical weight lifting thing because I don't like it. What you *won't do* won't help ya. I *will* walk, jog, hike, and get on the elliptical every day in order to burn sufficient calories. Those activities make me happy and have worked well for me. My doctor even thought I was doing weight training because I have great muscle tone. Every body is different.

xRedHeaterx

To say running or any form of exercise "burns fat" is not entirely accurate. They burn CALORIES. Some of those calories come from fat some from other sources depending on a lot of factors. You can compare one type, speed, intensity of exercise to another and see some differences and then say one is superior to the other but that is where people run into trouble.

Exercise burns calories.

Calories deficit causes "weight" loss. Notice I didnt say fat loss? What percentage of that weight loss is body fat and what is lean body mass? Diet and exercise are going to play a huge role in that.

Some exercises promote the retention of lean body mass and some dont. So if you want to ensure the weight loss from your calorie deficit is a more body fat than lean mass, is running a better or worse exercise than resistance training?

Do both.

I agree mostly, but the study specifically claims that running provides higher fat loss. It doesn't say just higher weight loss. I assume they dunked them before/after to get accurate fat percentage stats. Of course its the amount of calories that are lost that will lead into the fat loss, but some people would claim that an activity could burn less calories but end up shifting more fat, perhaps by providing an after-burn or boosting metabolism.

In the past I have lost weight without doing any weights, and ended up looking weak and wasted at the end of it, so I agree its definitely good to use weights to maintain or increase lean muscle while dieting.

Louisianababy93

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-1.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/weight-training-for-fat-loss-part-2.html

"metabolic type weight training workouts (e.g. Turbulence Training, Afterburn, etc.) that are often suggested when fat loss is the goal."

Wait, what was that again? weights dont burn fat?

P.S i havent done cardio in forever since i wised up and started lifting.. 20lbs down, just sayin!

wellbert

Weights have always had that opinion because it creates tone and definition, making you believe you've cut the fat when usually it is building the muscle that is already there. Running burns fat by increasing your heart rate because it's a cardio workout.

fat loss creates tone and definition.

AnvilHead

Weights have always had that opinion because it creates tone and definition, making you believe you've cut the fat when usually it is building the muscle that is already there. Running burns fat by increasing your heart rate because it's a cardio workout.

fat loss creates tone and definition.

Furthermore, you don't "build muscle" (at least not in appreciable amounts) while in a caloric deficit. As Wellbert said, definition is created by losing the fat which is covering your muscles.

mustgetmuscles1

To say running or any form of exercise "burns fat" is not entirely accurate. They burn CALORIES. Some of those calories come from fat some from other sources depending on a lot of factors. You can compare one type, speed, intensity of exercise to another and see some differences and then say one is superior to the other but that is where people run into trouble.

Exercise burns calories.

Calories deficit causes "weight" loss. Notice I didnt say fat loss? What percentage of that weight loss is body fat and what is lean body mass? Diet and exercise are going to play a huge role in that.

Some exercises promote the retention of lean body mass and some dont. So if you want to ensure the weight loss from your calorie deficit is a more body fat than lean mass, is running a better or worse exercise than resistance training?

Do both.

I agree mostly, but the study specifically claims that running provides higher fat loss. It doesn't say just higher weight loss. I assume they dunked them before/after to get accurate fat percentage stats. Of course its the amount of calories that are lost that will lead into the fat loss, but some people would claim that an activity could burn less calories but end up shifting more fat, perhaps by providing an after-burn or boosting metabolism.

In the past I have lost weight without doing any weights, and ended up looking weak and wasted at the end of it, so I agree its definitely good to use weights to maintain or increase lean muscle while dieting.

I did not read the study (I did not see a link to it) but I read the article. Higher weight loss and higher fat mass loss I think is the quote. This is what most people already agree on. Running can give you a higher deficit resulting in more weight loss. No surprise or arguments and if the scale is the only thing you care about then that is fine. You will lose weight and just be a smaller you. You could do the same exact thing with diet alone and no cardio at all.

It is the calorie deficit that causes the weight loss and ultimately fat loss.

Another interesting article WITH attached study that pretty much states the opposite of this article.
http://fitnessblackbook.com/dieting_for_fat_loss/maintain-muscle-mass-on-800-calories-per-day/

xRedHeaterx

The article is presenting it like this:

"If you want to burn fat, it's better to hit the treadmill than the weight room, a new study suggests.
The results show aerobic workouts are better than resistance training for reducing fat mass.
And a workout that combines the two activities — lifting weights in addition to running — is no better at burning fat than running alone, the researchers said.
The findings contradict the idea that resistance training can help with weight and fat loss by improving metabolism, the researchers said."


mustgetmuscle - Again, I pretty much agree with you but if what this is saying is accurate then it wouldn't be just about caring about the weight scales, but also the fat measurement. The other article you provide the link for is from 2009 (and I think also the body recomposition one) so the question is whether anything new has been learned from this study that they didn't know back in 2009.

Louisianababy - I'm a fan of Lyle (body recomposition) as well. If this new study amounts to anything he will no doubt comment on it at some point.

Azdak

Based on the comments after the article, I'm sure this study is going to pee in a lot of people's holy water.

Before jumping to any conclusions, there are several things to keep in mind. One is that the details are important. The kind of weight program, the dietary controls, the type of cardio, etc. this is a good study because of the large sample size, so it is wrong to attack the messenger. However, the applicability of the study depends on the details. You can't just draw conclusions about "weight lifting" in general.

It is also important to remember that a research study can only look at select variables. So it is rare that any one a study can provide a definitive answer. You have to take each chunk of new data and plug it into the overall picture--like one piece of a 1000 piece puzzle.

What a study like this DOES indicate, however, is that caution must be exercise before making absolutist claims about any type of exercise or before denigrating any type or workout (eg "mindless cardio").

FWIW I believe this is the same department that published another study showing that steady-state cardio was more effective at reducing visceral fat that HIIT or resistance exercise.

Azdak

Of course running burns fat...it burns more calories in the moment you are doing it more than lifting weights. That doesn't mean it is a more effective at getting your body to look the way you want it, long term, however.

Depends on how you want it to look. Are you saying there is only one acceptable body type?

Azdak

Cardio will burn more calories in general, it is true. This will result in more fat loss overall.

But without weights, the extra cardio will further reduce muscle mass, which will leave you still looking "fat" even when you hit lower weight levels and lower body fat percentages.

Weights will make everything look much better in the end though.

Not necessarily. As long as one maintains a neutral/positive nitrogen balance, a person can do quite a bit of cardio without any decrease in muscle mass.

High levels of endurance cardio (esp running) can INHIBIT increases in muscle mass, but won't automatically cause it to decrease. Nor will it PREVENT increases in muscle mass (up to a point).

At the far ends of the continuum --whether body building or power lifting/sports--endurance cardio can have a negative effect, but for those not at that end, it's not that significant. I think that people often apply the wrong standard for evaluating the significance/effect of endurance cardio.

Azdak

Cardio will burn more calories in general, it is true. This will result in more fat loss overall.

But without weights, the extra cardio will further reduce muscle mass, which will leave you still looking "fat" even when you hit lower weight levels and lower body fat percentages.

Weights will make everything look much better in the end though.

What he said. Or to summarize:

Run - lose weight
Lift - look good naked

I don't know--I don't think I want to see any more of this revealed:

AnvilHead

I don't know--I don't think I want to see any more of this revealed:

Synthol =!= lifting.

Yogi_Carl

.

Yogi_Carl

Of course running burns fat...it burns more calories in the moment you are doing it more than lifting weights. That doesn't mean it is a more effective at getting your body to look the way you want it, long term, however.

Depends on how you want it to look. Are you saying there is only one acceptable body type?

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I also feel that most people joining MFP are looking to reduce bodyfat and work towards having an above average amount of strength and to improve their physique. This can be done without ever touching weightlifting equipment or regular hours in the gym if you don't want to. Strength should be specific to the activities we need the strength for and the look we wish to achieve will follow.

I'm not against weight lifting at all - just feel people should be encouraged to look outside the box, not just think they would never be able to acheive "the look" and just give up.

mustgetmuscles1

The article is presenting it like this:

"If you want to burn fat, it's better to hit the treadmill than the weight room, a new study suggests.
The results show aerobic workouts are better than resistance training for reducing fat mass.
And a workout that combines the two activities — lifting weights in addition to running — is no better at burning fat than running alone, the researchers said.
The findings contradict the idea that resistance training can help with weight and fat loss by improving metabolism, the researchers said."


mustgetmuscle - Again, I pretty much agree with you but if what this is saying is accurate then it wouldn't be just about caring about the weight scales, but also the fat measurement. The other article you provide the link for is from 2009 (and I think also the body recomposition one) so the question is whether anything new has been learned from this study that they didn't know back in 2009.

Louisianababy - I'm a fan of Lyle (body recomposition) as well. If this new study amounts to anything he will no doubt comment on it at some point.

Agreed. I would have to see the study to know more about calorie intakes, what weightlifting programs and so on.

If the results are something like:

Running lost and average of 10lbs and 8 lbs were from fat.
Weightlifting lost an average of 6 lbs and 7 lbs were from fat.

Then saying running is superior for burning more weight and more fat may be true. A lot of people may choose the other program though.