Running, not weights, burns fat :/

mustgetmuscles1

http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831.abstract

Abstract

Recent guidelines on exercise for weight loss and weight maintenance include resistance training as part of the exercise prescription. Yet few studies have compared the effects of similar amounts of aerobic and resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight adults. STRRIDE AT/RT, a randomized trial, compared aerobic training, resistance training, and a combination of the two to determine the optimal mode of exercise for obesity reduction. Participants were 119 sedentary, overweight or obese adults who were randomized to one of three 8-mo exercise protocols: 1) RT: resistance training, 2) AT: aerobic training, and 3) AT/RT: aerobic and resistance training (combination of AT and RT). Primary outcomes included total body mass, fat mass, and lean body mass. The AT and AT/RT groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT (P < 0.05), but they were not different from each other.RT and AT/RT increased lean body mass more than AT (P < 0.05). While requiring double the time commitment, a program of combined AT and RT did not result in significantly more fat mass or body mass reductions over AT alone. Balancing time commitments against health benefits, it appears that AT is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass and body mass, while a program including RT is needed for increasing lean mass in middle-aged, overweight/obese individuals.

Increased LBM but burn less total mass and less fat mass. Hmmmm which one would you all pick? This study really doesnt tell us anything we dont already know. Overweight and obese people, new to training, can burn fat and add muscle at the same time and calorie deficit determines that amount of weight loss not the form of exercise.

etoiles_argentees

They've been working on this for years, nothing conclusive.

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Nov;4(6):499-502.
Gender differences in fat metabolism.
Blaak E.
Source
Department of Human Biology, Nutrition Research Centre, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. E.Blaak@HB.Unimaas.nl
Abstract
Women generally have a higher percentage of body fat than men. Also, women store more fat in the gluteal-femoral region, whereas men store more fat in the visceral (abdominal) depot. This review focuses on differences in regional fatty acid storage, mobilization and oxidation that may contribute to gender-related differences in body fat distribution. There are pronounced regional differences in the regulation of regional fatty acid metabolism between men and women. Firstly, there is evidence that in vivo, catecholamine mediated leg free fatty acid release is lower in women than in men, whereas free fatty acid release from the upper body depots is comparable. These data correspond to in-vitro adipose tissue biopsy data, which indicate a more pronounced difference in catecholamine mediated lipolysis between upper body and lower body fat depots in women than in men. Secondly, free fatty acid release by the upper body subcutaneous fat depots is higher in men than in women, indicating a higher resistance to the antilipolytic effect of meal ingestion in the upper body fat depots in men. Thirdly, there are indications that basal fat oxidation (adjusted for fat free mass) is lower in females as compared to males, thereby contributing to a higher fat storage in women. Finally, postprandial fat storage may be higher in subcutaneous adipose tissue in women than in men, whereas storage in visceral adipose tissue has been hypothesized to be higher in men. All the above differences may play a role in the variation in net regional fat storage between men and women, but the number of in-vivo studies on gender-related differences in fatty acid metabolism is very limited and most findings require confirmation. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that the proportion of energy derived from fat during exercise is higher in women than in men. With respect to total body fat, this finding seems counterintuitive, as percentage body fat is increased in women. Further studies are necessary to investigate the significance of differences in exercise-induced fat oxidation on 24-h fat balance.

Last 3 sentences.

bridgelene

I think a good balance is best, but if I had to choose one over the other I'd go with running. Not to lose weight. And not lifting for definition.

But shouldn't we be here to be HEALTHY? Cardiovascular exercise improves your overall health -- heart, lungs, etc. Isn't that what should be most important?

mustgetmuscles1

I think a good balance is best, but if I had to choose one over the other I'd go with running. Not to lose weight. And not lifting for definition.

But shouldn't we be here to be HEALTHY? Cardiovascular exercise improves your overall health -- heart, lungs, etc. Isn't that what should be most important?

That would imply that weightlifting does not also improve heart/lung health. Which it most certainly can. There are other "health" benefits from lifting weights such as retention of LBW and bone density/strength and others as well.


Just an FYI I do both cardio and weight lifting. I choose other forms of cardio because I do not enjoy running but think it is a superior method for burning the most calories.

kaervaak

I know for me, that when I switched from running 5K three times a week to doing SL5x5 three times per week all while carefully tracking my weight and calorie intake, my TDEE increased by about 300 calories per day on average. The weights takes about twice as long as a 5K run, (1 hour vs 30 minutes) but I think the extra calorie burn and retention of a higher percentage of lean body mass more than makes up for it.

wgn4166

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

Yes.

Yes, this.... and I want to look good naked!!

Shannon2714

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

All I need to know.

MoreBean13

I think a good balance is best, but if I had to choose one over the other I'd go with running. Not to lose weight. And not lifting for definition.

But shouldn't we be here to be HEALTHY? Cardiovascular exercise improves your overall health -- heart, lungs, etc. Isn't that what should be most important?

That would imply that weightlifting does not also improve heart/lung health. Which it most certainly can. There are other "health" benefits from lifting weights such as retention of LBW and bone density/strength and others as well.


Just an FYI I do both cardio and weight lifting. I choose other forms of cardio because I do not enjoy running but think it is a superior method for burning the most calories.

I hate to even get back in to this because I still vote both, but if you're going to claim lifting for cardiovascular benefits then you have to give credit to weight bearing cardio like running for bone density, too.

likemeinvisible

I think a good balance is best, but if I had to choose one over the other I'd go with running. Not to lose weight. And not lifting for definition.

But shouldn't we be here to be HEALTHY? Cardiovascular exercise improves your overall health -- heart, lungs, etc. Isn't that what should be most important?

That would imply that weightlifting does not also improve heart/lung health. Which it most certainly can. There are other "health" benefits from lifting weights such as retention of LBW and bone density/strength and others as well.


Just an FYI I do both cardio and weight lifting. I choose other forms of cardio because I do not enjoy running but think it is a superior method for burning the most calories.

I hate to even get back in to this because I still vote both, but if you're going to claim lifting for cardiovascular benefits then you have to give credit to weight bearing cardio like running for bone density, too.

Bone density ? didn't know that. That sucks I'm gonna have my bones drilled holes in them.

Froody2

Meh, I like running/walking whilst reducing.

Once I get closer to my goal I'll add resistance training.

Love both, I don't see why this has to be constantly argued about. It's over, let it be.


Edit: should have read the second page before replying lol.

LeanerBeef

Anything that involves not sitting on your *kitten* burns fat/calories....

TeachTheGirl

I personally enjoy both. I think that works enough for me.

Cathleenr

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.

well, no, not really.

but here is the abstract from the study itself:
Recent guidelines on exercise for weight loss and weight maintenance include resistance training as part of the exercise prescription. Yet few studies have compared the effects of similar amounts of aerobic and resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight adults. STRRIDE AT/RT, a randomized trial, compared aerobic training, resistance training, and a combination of the two to determine the optimal mode of exercise for obesity reduction. Participants were 119 sedentary, overweight or obese adults who were randomized to one of three 8-mo exercise protocols: 1) RT: resistance training, 2) AT: aerobic training, and 3) AT/RT: aerobic and resistance training (combination of AT and RT). Primary outcomes included total body mass, fat mass, and lean body mass. The AT and AT/RT groups reduced total body mass and fat mass more than RT (P < 0.05), but they were not different from each other. RT and AT/RT increased lean body mass more than AT (P < 0.05). While requiring double the time commitment, a program of combined AT and RT did not result in significantly more fat mass or body mass reductions over AT alone. Balancing time commitments against health benefits, it appears that AT is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass and body mass, while a program including RT is needed for increasing lean mass in middle-aged, overweight/obese individuals.

the participants were sedentary, obese individuals, so any increase in physical activity would result in a reduction of weight.
duh.
notice the groups who were assigned RT (resistance training) increased lean mass, while the AT group (aerobic training) only reduced "total body mass".
and, the study designers apparently assigned an equal amount of time for AT and AT/RT and concluded that it would take up "double" the amount of time commitments and that did not result in more fat loss.
because there isn't lean muscle tissue building going on.

**eye roll**

joslin2005

Anything that involves not sitting on your *kitten* burns fat/calories....

This. Even breathing, sleeping burn calories so I don't know why weights wouldn't burn fat.

From my knowledge, the more muscle you have the more calories you burn. You also get what they call an after burn. Your body's metabolism speeds up after lifting weights which in return keep burning calories after your workout.

RyanWilson1993

Not true lifting heavy can burn fat and build muscle at the same time just gotta make sure your in a caloric deficit

Sarauk2sf

Not true lifting heavy can burn fat and build muscle at the same time just gotta make sure your in a caloric deficit

How exactly do you build muscle in a caloric deficit?

AnvilHead

...From my knowledge, the more muscle you have the more calories you burn...

Most recent research I've read pegs it at around 6 extra calories burned per pound of muscle. Not a very significant factor.

I'm not arguing against the efficacy of weight training - in fact, if I were forced to choose between strength training and cardio, I'd lose the cardio in a heartbeat. In this study where they compared strength training vs. cardio, both groups experienced an equal increase in VO2 Max; however, the strength training group maintained lean body mass while losing fat and also increased their RMR, whereas the cardio-only group showed a significant decrease in both lean body mass and RMR:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

AnvilHead

Not true lifting heavy can burn fat and build muscle at the same time just gotta make sure your in a caloric deficit

Read this article and educate yourself:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

Jynus

What I think of this study is the same thing I think about most of them. Utter garbage and anyone taking this conclusion seriously is a blathering idiot.

Why you ask? Because the resistance training group for these sorts of studies are ALL the same. Bunch of scientists who have jack ****ing clue about what resistance training is, and makes the study participants do a full body machine circuit for the length of the study. I would be very surprised if anyone here regularly did compound movements or had ANY sort of periodized training template. So no ****ing **** that the cardio group had improved results vs a resistance training group that only did resistance training for prob the first month before they adapted and no longer attempted to overload muscles thereafter.

Hell, even the abstract contradicts itself. The cardio and combined group lost the same fat and weight. But the combined group kept more weight than the cardio group.......... so which is it...

edit: found some facts from more searching

1) Yup, I called it. they had a 8 machine circuit they did for 3 sets of 8-12 reps. This study is about as useless as tits on a boar if thats the resistance training they did.

2) The total weight lost for the study was 3.6lbs vs 3.8lbs over 8 months for combined vs cardio!!!!!!!! seriously? there were obviously some huge ****ing diet flaws if they were only able to get 2 weeks worth of results over 8 ****ing months...

3) They CONSTANTLY contradict themselves in their interpretation of the results. They keep saying things like the resistance group gained lean mass, but weight and fat stayed the same. Which doesn't make any sense. Or the above point where combined was contradicted. I don't think they actually understand their own results, or are very poor communicators of it...

4) The combined group had the the most inches lost. Which pretty much confirms it had the highest fat loss results and overall best results. Yet the abstract says it didn't??? Based on this alone, I'm positive the body fat test was done with callipers and NOT with dxha or hydrostatic. I'm thinking the bodyfat tests should be considered highly suspect for these results. specially when the weight lost numbers are so laughably bad due to uncontrolled diet..

Exercise studies like these just burn me as they are never done properly. Might as well print them on toilet paper as then they would actually have some value to wipe my *kitten* with....

Jynus

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:

what does that pic have to do with lifting exactly? Should I post a pic of a chick with huge fake tits and warn about the dangers of lifting on over developing chest muscles?