Aerobics best for fat loss

bcattoes

Aerobic Exercise Seems Best for Weight, Fat Loss
Researchers compared it to resistance training, found it more effective

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_132293.html

SATURDAY, Dec. 15 (HealthDay News) -- If you want to burn fat and lose weight, aerobic exercise beats resistance training, a new study says.

"We not trying to discourage people from resistance training," said study author Leslie Willis, clinical research coordinator at Duke University Medical Center and an exercise physiologist.

Previous studies have shown that resistance training has many benefits, including improving blood sugar control, she said, but the effects of it on fat reduction have not been conclusive.

The new study, published Dec. 15 in the Journal of Applied Physiology, compared resistance training to aerobic exercise to determine which is best for weight and fat loss.

The new study results suggest for people short on time, focusing on aerobic exercise is the best way to lose weight and fat, Willis said.
...
"If fat mass is something a person wants to target, I would say your most time-efficient method would be to focus on the cardiovascular exercise," she said.

"Resistance training did increase lean mass, but it doesn't change fat mass, so the pounds didn't change," she said.


Link to study: http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831.full.pdf+html

sin485

i personally think its better to combine the 2

bcattoes

i personally think its better to combine the 2

For overall health and fitness, yes, but the two combined didn't improve fat loss (the focus of the study) over aerobics alone.

erindh87

"Resistance training did increase lean mass, but it doesn't change fat mass, so the pounds didn't change," she said.

I'm a little confused by this statement. When they say the pounds didn't change, I'm guessing they meant overall weight? If that's the case, if lean mass increased, wouldn't fat mass have to decrease in order for the overall weight to remain constant?

Shamrock_me

I saw that too! I am still advocating strength AND cardio training as equally important to me. I think this only states obvious facts and not probable relative information. Besides I enjoy any useless excuse to show off my biceps!! It isn't enough to be thinner - I can be just thin. I want to be strong! I want to walk away from the gym & hear HOLY cow did you see that girl do all those chin ups?? That's *my* flavor of vanity I suppose. I don't want to bulk I just want to intimidate!!

jacksonpt

Does anyone actually think lifting burns fat?


Lifting burns cals. Where those cals come from is based on a variety of things. Same goes with cardio... burns cals, not fat or muscle or whatever else. But more to the point of this "study"... a caloric deficit reduces body weight. Lifting (along with sufficient protein intake) helps reduce muscle loss.

weight loss + muscle retention = fat loss.

bcattoes

"Resistance training did increase lean mass, but it doesn't change fat mass, so the pounds didn't change," she said.

I'm a little confused by this statement. When they say the pounds didn't change, I'm guessing they meant overall weight? If that's the case, if lean mass increased, wouldn't fat mass have to decrease in order for the overall weight to remain constant?

From the study results (emphasis mine): Perhaps the most commonly cited reason for the reduction of
fat mass and body weight by RT is that resting metabolic rate
(RMR) theoretically increases as lean body mass increases (10,
16, 20, 22), resulting in a steady state increase in total energy
expenditure and a corresponding negative shift in energy balance.
Although we did not directly measure RMR in the
present study, we observed that RT increased lean body mass
without a significant change in fat mass or body weight,
irrespective of any change in RMR that might have occurred.
Given these observations, along with those from other studies
(7, 9, 19), it may be time to seriously reconsider the conventional
wisdom that RT alone can induce changes in body mass
or fat mass due to an increase in metabolism in overweight or
obese sedentary adults.

Azdak

"Resistance training did increase lean mass, but it doesn't change fat mass, so the pounds didn't change," she said.

I'm a little confused by this statement. When they say the pounds didn't change, I'm guessing they meant overall weight? If that's the case, if lean mass increased, wouldn't fat mass have to decrease in order for the overall weight to remain constant?

Yes, sort of. In their statements they are doing some rounding. Overall, body wt in the RT group increased slightly. That was due to an increase in Lean Mass offset by a smaller decrease in fat mass.

Specifically: Total Body wt increased 0.83 kg compared to baseline; Lean mass increased 1.09 kg compared to baseline; Fat mass decreased 0.26 kg compared to baseline.

Azdak

"Resistance training did increase lean mass, but it doesn't change fat mass, so the pounds didn't change," she said.

I'm a little confused by this statement. When they say the pounds didn't change, I'm guessing they meant overall weight? If that's the case, if lean mass increased, wouldn't fat mass have to decrease in order for the overall weight to remain constant?

From the study results (emphasis mine): Perhaps the most commonly cited reason for the reduction of
fat mass and body weight by RT is that resting metabolic rate
(RMR) theoretically increases as lean body mass increases (10,
16, 20, 22), resulting in a steady state increase in total energy
expenditure and a corresponding negative shift in energy balance.
Although we did not directly measure RMR in the
present study, we observed that RT increased lean body mass
without a significant change in fat mass or body weight,
irrespective of any change in RMR that might have occurred.
Given these observations, along with those from other studies
(7, 9, 19), it may be time to seriously reconsider the conventional
wisdom that RT alone can induce changes in body mass
or fat mass due to an increase in metabolism in overweight or
obese sedentary adults.

Yeah, I was going to get to that. One thing you get from a "real" research study such as this one is a comparative literature search to provide some perspective. And this study is fitting in with the trend of other similar studies that are raising questions about the effect on resistance training on resting metabolism--which shouldn't be that surprising to anyone who follows the literature.

Azdak

I saw that too! I am still advocating strength AND cardio training as equally important to me. I think this only states obvious facts and not probable relative information. Besides I enjoy any useless excuse to show off my biceps!! It isn't enough to be thinner - I can be just thin. I want to be strong! I want to walk away from the gym & hear HOLY cow did you see that girl do all those chin ups?? That's *my* flavor of vanity I suppose. I don't want to bulk I just want to intimidate!!

It's always important to put statements into context. The authors of the study were NOT disparaging resistance training. Their statements that aerobic training was "best" for reducing fat mass were put in the context of "adding resistance training doubled the exercise time without showing significant increase in fat loss".

So, if their statement criteria was "what type of exercise is most efficient--i.e. burns most fat in least amount of time", the study suggested that AT was the choice.

However, in the larger context, that criteria is not the ONLY relevant criteria, so one shouldn't take that statement as an absolutist one.

lizziebeth1028

Recipe for fat loss - calorie deficit + cardio + strength training

FullOfWin

I don;t feel like looking at the study. What was the resistance training comprised of? Hopefully not another done with people doing 30% of 1rm of leg extensions to failure...


Also the RMR increase from the noob gains in LBM that someone lifting on a cal deficit will get is fairly negligible. The simple fact is RT makes you look better (as per most societal standards. of course subjective) once bf% gets anywhere reasonable (basically below "obese" level)

bcattoes

Recipe for fat loss - calorie deficit + cardio + strength training

Yes, but according to this study results, if you remove the strength training the fat loss will be about the same.

*Though no one is recommending removing strength training

Azdak

Also important to look at the group of subjects. These were sedentary adults (avg age 50), modestly overweight. For this group, the study (and other literature cited) supports a routine that emphasizes aerobic training with supplementary resistance training.

That's not earthshaking news. This approach has been used successfully with millions of people and is the template for the weight-loss program we have used in the 3 years I have worked here. Avg weight loss: 20 lb in 12 wks, most of it from fat. (Actually, the avg is about 18-20 pounds of fat--those who lose more than 20 lbs tend to show a higher decrease in LBM. Meaning that they still lose the same 18-20 pounds of fat--the remainder of the scale weight loss is LBM).

This tried and true approach has been muted somewhat in recent years by the cacophony of "trainers" and other self-promoters pushing ever more elaborate "new and improved" programs.

csuhar

One thing I'd like a better look at is how the "ramp up" procedures really paralleled. (I may have skimmed over it- I've got somewhere to be.) It says in the training protocols that they're doing 12 miles per week at 65-80% of peak V02. Meanwhile, weights are added 5 lbs at a time each time they have proper form for all 3 sets.

If they're able to make sure a subject is in that 65-80% range from day 1, then the cardio is being done at the intended level of exertion from the start. But if they undershoot the weight a subject can do 36 reps at by, say, 20 pounds, then you need to bump it up 4 times, which means you have to have 4 groups of 2 consecutive sessions, so 8 sessions total. At three sessions a week, they might not be hitting the intended level of exertion for the RT until almost 3 weeks after starting. So for 3 weeks, you may be at the intended exertion level for AT while you're still figuring out where that level is for the RT.

If someone with a bit more time to read has found where this may have been addressed, by all means, let me know.

bcattoes

Also important to look at the group of subjects. These were sedentary adults (avg age 50), modestly overweight. For this group, the study (and other literature cited) supports a routine that emphasizes aerobic training with supplementary resistance training.

That's not earthshaking news. This approach has been used successfully with millions of people and is the template for the weight-loss program we have used in the 3 years I have worked here. Avg weight loss: 20 lb in 12 wks, most of it from fat. (Actually, the avg is about 18-20 pounds of fat--those who lose more than 20 lbs tend to show a higher decrease in LBM. Meaning that they still lose the same 18-20 pounds of fat--the remainder of the scale weight loss is LBM).

This tried and true approach has been muted somewhat in recent years by the cacophony of "trainers" and other self-promoters pushing ever more elaborate "new and improved" programs.

The participants were overweight to moderately obese, which it's sad to say probably is considered modestly overweight in our current society.

But the focus the study wasn't on weight loss, per se. It was fat loss. You are correct that the study does not discourage strength training, but it showed no benefit in fat loss from it.

etoiles_argentees

Didn't we do this yesterday? hmmm.....

taso42

bcattoes, you've been here a long time. i'm kind of surprised you would buy in to stuff like this.

bcattoes

bcattoes, you've been here a long time. i'm kind of surprised you would buy in to stuff like this.

I've actually always believed aerobics is best for fat loss, despite what the bodybuilders might claim. Strength training is important for, well, strength. But in my many years of experience, nothing beats cardio for fat loss.

What do you find wrong with the study or the results?

Mrsjay27

Its good they are not recommending removing strength training because without it you'd have skin, bone and very little muscle and as a result an unattractive weak physique. As for the effectiveness of removing fat I'm sure cardio is very important. Guess it depends on the need of the individual as well as the body type they are. Lets say your an overweight person with a mesomorph body type, in this case the muscle is naturally there and cardio probably should be the main focus because at the end of the day the muscle isn't going anywhere. But if your an overweight endomorph(has a slower metabolism, tends to carry a lot of fat on their body, has great power but no muscle definition) in my opinion, cardio will help but once the fat is gone , if weight training wasn't a priority there won't be much of a toned shape to show for all the work, just flab, so both cardio and weights are vital. An ectomorph needs weight training as well they lack in strength and muscle.

All I know is regardless of my body type and what the scale says I am going to need strong bones and muscle now and even more as I'm getting older, no younger, so both are very important to me. I don't want to be a slim or flabby old lady with a cane and weak bones and muscle = stronger bones. I think if I had to skip a workout I would rather it be cardio than weight training.

Interesting topic though thanks!

heybales

Sure be nice to know what level of lifting was done, besides using 8 different weight machines.

Same problem you get with aerobic efforts - reach a plateau where the pace and intensity is no longer a challenge, no longer requiring improvement, and it's just an easy calorie burn with no body improvement because of no real load anymore.

Resistance training can reach the same level easily, no advancement, not hard, no body improvements.

Because some studies with better measurements of the strength aspect do show good fat loss. Even when deficit diet is not involved.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/76/1/133.short

Also, I saw no where that diet or calorie restriction is mentioned.

Did they actually deficit diet, or exercise was purely the deficit?

Because I thought it was known resistance training doesn't burn as many calories as equal time doing cardio, if eating level were kept the same.

Did they control for diet, like how previous studies show under certain exercise types people eat more, and sometimes wipe out the deficit the exercise created?

Since creating a deficit with diet is main method of losing weight, how did they account for that, if they did?

Seems to be a lot lacking in this study perhaps, though I didn't find and dig into the details yet.