Aerobics best for fat loss
Replies
-
I do a lot of MY own research too.
But ultimately what works for me (and most people) is Calories deficit+Strength training+Aerobic exercise. At first I was only doing Aerobics and I stopped losing weight, then I added in strength training, and since then have lost 12 of the entire 22lbs I have lost so far, and then tell me how something is not working, or fat loss did not improve?0 -
Aerobics burns more calories immediately, resistance training doesn't do this.
Resistance training is meant more to PRESERVE lean body mass and avoid the dreaded skinny fat.
You can achieve all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone. The benefits given during weight loss by resistance training cannot be achieved by diet alone.0 -
Aerobics burns more calories immediately, resistance training doesn't do this.
Resistance training is meant more to PRESERVE lean body mass and avoid the dreaded skinny fat.
You can achieve all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone. The benefits given during weight loss by resistance training cannot be achieved by diet alone.
I have found the opposite. resistance training maintains muscle, while cardio (running) burns calories. If I were to try to acheive all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone, I wouldn't be eating much!0 -
Aerobics burns more calories immediately, resistance training doesn't do this.
Resistance training is meant more to PRESERVE lean body mass and avoid the dreaded skinny fat.
You can achieve all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone. The benefits given during weight loss by resistance training cannot be achieved by diet alone.
I have found the opposite. resistance training maintains muscle, while cardio (running) burns calories. If I were to try to acheive all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone, I wouldn't be eating much!
You just repeated what I said in your own words but claim the opposite... maybe you didn't read what I wrote correctly.
Fat loss is about calories in versus calories out. Aerobic exercise increases the calories out. Diet decreases the calories in. Any combination of the two can work, even using one and not the other.
Resistance training aids in keeping lean body mass by encouraging energy use from fat cells as opposed to proteins.0 -
oh this again. I c&p my reply from the last one.
What I think of this study is the same thing I think about the rest 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....0 -
oh this again. I c&p my reply from the last one.
What I think of this study is the same thing I think about the rest 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....
Awaiting the illuminating results from your impeccably crafted, peer-reviewed study any day now...........0 -
Serious? I didn't know pointing out obvious flaws in a study required proof of one done right as a follow up.Awaiting the illuminating results from your impeccably crafted, peer-reviewed study any day now...........0 -
Would this be MFP if we didn't beat the same several dead horses over and over?
LOL - Yes, sad but true...
Only the folks that beat the horse once and choose to beat it again are doing it over and over. Those that missed it the first, second , etc. time might appreciate it. It is, after all, your choice which posts to read and respond to. If it makes you sad, why do you do it?0 -
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.
This is exactly whats working for me. I can NOT stress enough - that fat loss comes from proper nutrition- especially the older we get. You can zumba day and night- but if you eat crap- it just wont work. So I run, zumba and walk- I also lift heavy 2x a week and I have dipped below my goal weight- making me reassess my goals. Apparently my body loves what Im doing and is responding well.0 -
oh this again. I c&p my reply from the last one.
What I think of this study is the same thing I think about the rest 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....
So, you think they were lying about how they measured fat and/or the results of the fat measurement? I think that's very unlikely. Whether you personally prefer free weights or lifting heavier than what was used in the study, does not mean that weight machines don't provide resistance (but surely you knew that). Stop trying to read more into one study that is there. They outlined their parameters, they published their results and their interpretations of that results. That's pretty much as far as any single study goes.0 -
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?
well i didn't read the study; only skimmed the web article you posted. for one thing, it does not even contain the word calorie.
obviously that means calories are irrelevant to weight loss! we should all just stop counting calories and macros and run on the hamster wheel since the study didn't mention couting right?
Obviously.0 -
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?
well i didn't read the study; only skimmed the web article you posted. for one thing, it does not even contain the word calorie.
Really not trying to be mean here but, having been here a long time, I was really surprised you would insinuate a study you hadn't even read was flawed. From the study (URL provided in OP):
Nutrition. Calorie intake was assessed using a 3-day food record
and a 24-h recall interview conducted at the beginning and end of the
training period. Dietary intakes recorded from the 3-day records and
24-h recalls were analyzed for calorie and macronutrient content using
Food Processor Nutrition Analysis Software (Version 7.1, 1996,
ESHA Research, Salem, OR), which provides access to information
on over 15,000 food items with data for 105 nutrient components.
Confirmation of nonsignificant variability between the two measures
permitted us to combine the two measures and calculate a mean
energy intake over 4 discrete days at each time point.0 -
I do agree with them questioning the mechanism by which RT supposedly induces fat loss. They specifically state:
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.
and while I think that this blanket statement that is often used: "lifting increases muscle mass and muscle mass burns more calories" is true, it's overstated. Considering that most people, especially those intending to lose fat, are not gaining significant amounts of LBM, the addition of a few lbs of muscle isn't really doing much in terms of additional thermogenesis. The addition of more activity is probably what really makes a difference.
EDIT: And this is due to muscle not having all that big of a contribution to energy-out (6-9kcal/lb IIRC?), and not that much LBM being gained.0 -
and while I think that this blanket statement that is often used: "lifting increases muscle mass and muscle mass burns more calories" is true, it's overstated. Considering that most people, especially those intending to lose fat, are not gaining significant amounts of LBM, the addition of a few lbs of muscle isn't really doing much in terms of additional thermogenesis. The addition of more activity is probably what really makes a difference.
agreed.
People too often think adding a lb of muscle will turn their metabolism into a calorie burning furnace. Not true... the gains are much smaller than many people are lead to believe.0 -
oh this again. I c&p my reply from the last one.
What I think of this study is the same thing I think about the rest 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....
So, you think they were lying about how they measured fat and/or the results of the fat measurement? I think that's very unlikely. Whether you personally prefer free weights or lifting heavier than what was used in the study, does not mean that weight machines don't provide resistance (but surely you knew that). Stop trying to read more into one study that is there. They outlined their parameters, they published their results and their interpretations of that results. That's pretty much as far as any single study goes.
Except that THIS study undermined deeply-held ideological beliefs--therefore it must be attacked and destroyed.0 -
oh this again. I c&p my reply from the last one.
What I think of this study is the same thing I think about the rest 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....
So, you think they were lying about how they measured fat and/or the results of the fat measurement? I think that's very unlikely. Whether you personally prefer free weights or lifting heavier than what was used in the study, does not mean that weight machines don't provide resistance (but surely you knew that). Stop trying to read more into one study that is there. They outlined their parameters, they published their results and their interpretations of that results. That's pretty much as far as any single study goes.
Except that THIS study undermined deeply-held ideological beliefs--therefore it must be attacked and destroyed.
"deeply-held ideological beliefs" :huh:
I'm not really sure to what beliefs you refer, but study results are what they are. If they undermine commonly held beliefs, then it just means more study is needed. I actually thought it was pretty common knowledge that aerobics burns more fat than resistance before I joined MFP.0 -
Damn dude, you're HELLA smart. Yep, this is what I would have said.I do agree with them questioning the mechanism by which RT supposedly induces fat loss. They specifically state:
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.
and while I think that this blanket statement that is often used: "lifting increases muscle mass and muscle mass burns more calories" is true, it's overstated. Considering that most people, especially those intending to lose fat, are not gaining significant amounts of LBM, the addition of a few lbs of muscle isn't really doing much in terms of additional thermogenesis. The addition of more activity is probably what really makes a difference.
EDIT: And this is due to muscle not having all that big of a contribution to energy-out (6-9kcal/lb IIRC?), and not that much LBM being gained.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
and while I think that this blanket statement that is often used: "lifting increases muscle mass and muscle mass burns more calories" is true, it's overstated. Considering that most people, especially those intending to lose fat, are not gaining significant amounts of LBM, the addition of a few lbs of muscle isn't really doing much in terms of additional thermogenesis. The addition of more activity is probably what really makes a difference.
agreed.
People too often think adding a lb of muscle will turn their metabolism into a calorie burning furnace. Not true... the gains are much smaller than many people are lead to believe.
agreed but:
1 pound of muscle provides about 600 kcal, building 1 pound of muscle requieres almost 3500 kcal, so even if new muscle doesn't burn a lot of calories, the process of constant tearing muscles and rebuilding does affect your TDEE.0 -
agreed but:
1 pound of muscle provides about 600 kcal,
What do you mean by the above?0 -
Thanks for posting the link to the full study, I'd been looking for it but hadn't found it yet.
My take: the good is that they studied what Joe Average would do if he heard "aerobic" or "resistance" training, or read a couple of articles in Generic Fitness Magazine. It probably really is the best way to measure the type of real-world results that people would get from basic general knowledge. The bad is that this is not what Joe Average *should* be doing, or would be doing if he actually had an athletic/fitness-type coach. Proof that the jocks and the nerds need to join forces for the greater good of mankind.
The big problems I saw:
"Calorie intake was assessed using a 3-day food record and a 24-h recall interview conducted at the beginning and end of the training period."
What? Really? Ok, so this whole study is pretty useless, then. There is no data about how either group actually ate during the study. Again, useful to Joe Average readin' his magazine in the checkout line and thinkin' he's gonna add exercise to lose weight (he's not, so that's probably a good thing for him to know - I mean, really, <5 lbs over 32 weeks? For obese people? Come on.), but not applicable to people actually trying to lose weight. And by taking these two really loose spot measures, you've already skewed the data - recall interviews are notoriously inaccurate, and there are plenty of studies that show that the act of tracking eating changes caloric intake, which is a big part of why MFP works in the first place. So, bleh, sloppy.
The training protocols:
AT: "calorically equivalent to ~12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2"
RT: "Weightlifted amounts were increased by 5 lbs each time the participant performed 12 repetitions with proper form on all three sets during two consecutive workout sessions."
So... both are pretty slacky exercise protocols. But again, probably what real-world Westerners would do, so I can't complain as far as that goes, but you certainly can't extrapolate to, say, HIIT vs. lifting heavy.
Oh, and whoever was asking about the ramp-up period, the AT group ramp up was 8-10 weeks and the RT group was 4 weeks - both for volume. Intensity was recalculated weekly for the AT group to keep them in the range listed and increased as noted in the RT section. (It's in the "Exercise Training Protocols" section, couple of paragraphs in.) So that seems okish - it keeps both groups at kind of low intensity, which is probably worse for the RT than the AT group, but again is probably why they got such good compliance rates. Something is better than nothing, and all that.
The fact that the AT group lost LBM is utterly horrifying to me, but that's me. Joe Average doesn't care, he just wants to lose "weight," so hey, mission accomplished. And that is what they were studying - what makes you lose the most fat, not what makes you healthiest or best looking or strongest.
So yes, the study does show what it says it shows. It's just not a particularly useful piece of knowledge to have (except maybe the hints about LBM not increasing RMR in a significant way, which I thought we all knew already, but I guess it might inspire other studies on that, which is fine.)0 -
The big problems I saw:
"Calorie intake was assessed using a 3-day food record and a 24-h recall interview conducted at the beginning and end of the training period."
What? Really? Ok, so this whole study is pretty useless, then. There is no data about how either group actually ate during the study. Again, useful to Joe Average readin' his magazine in the checkout line and thinkin' he's gonna add exercise to lose weight (he's not, so that's probably a good thing for him to know - I mean, really, <5 lbs over 32 weeks? For obese people? Come on.), but not applicable to people actually trying to lose weight. And by taking these two really loose spot measures, you've already skewed the data - recall interviews are notoriously inaccurate, and there are plenty of studies that show that the act of tracking eating changes caloric intake, which is a big part of why MFP works in the first place. So, bleh, sloppy.
I could be wrong as I only read through the study once, but since the focus of the study was not diet or even weight loss, but specifically the difference in fat loss from aerobic vs resistance exercise, I think they did not instruct the participants to diet (which seems logical to me). And while people love to point out the inaccuracy of recall interviews for diet, it really is hard to find a good number of study participants willing to be locked away for 32 weeks so their diet can be monitored. It's pretty standard in these types of studies.The training protocols:
AT: "calorically equivalent to ~12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2"
RT: "Weightlifted amounts were increased by 5 lbs each time the participant performed 12 repetitions with proper form on all three sets during two consecutive workout sessions."
So... both are pretty slacky exercise protocols. But again, probably what real-world Westerners would do, so I can't complain as far as that goes, but you certainly can't extrapolate to, say, HIIT vs. lifting heavy.
Agreed, though HIIT is usually as much anaerobic as aerobic so should not be used in a study of aerobics. And extrapolating any single study's results beyond the study parameters is rarely a good idea.0 -
Aerobics burns more calories immediately, resistance training doesn't do this.
Resistance training is meant more to PRESERVE lean body mass and avoid the dreaded skinny fat.
You can achieve all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone. The benefits given during weight loss by resistance training cannot be achieved by diet alone.
I have found the opposite. resistance training maintains muscle, while cardio (running) burns calories. If I were to try to acheive all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone, I wouldn't be eating much!
You just repeated what I said in your own words but claim the opposite... maybe you didn't read what I wrote correctly.
Fat loss is about calories in versus calories out. Aerobic exercise increases the calories out. Diet decreases the calories in. Any combination of the two can work, even using one and not the other.
Resistance training aids in keeping lean body mass by encouraging energy use from fat cells as opposed to proteins.
I believe I read your post correctly. I was taking issue that, although you COULD achieve all the weight loss benefits aerobic exercise gives by diet alone, you would I suggest be better doing the cardio anyway otherwise you wouldn't be eating very much - which can lead to low motivation long term.
We are looking at the same points but seeing different things is all - both observations are valid I believe.0 -
I could be wrong as I only read through the study once, but since the focus of the study was not diet or even weight loss, but specifically the difference in fat loss from aerobic vs resistance exercise, I think they did not instruct the participants to diet (which seems logical to me). And while people love to point out the inaccuracy of recall interviews for diet, it really is hard to find a good number of study participants willing to be locked away for 32 weeks so their diet can be monitored. It's pretty standard in these types of studies.
This is true, and that's fine, but they didn't control for diet in any way. If you go look at the chart, the RT group ate more calories at the end of the study than the AT group did. But they're drawing the conclusion that it was the exercise that made them lose the weight and not the caloric intake, which, uh, I see as problematic. And only measuring at the beginning and end leaves a big unknown gap. Does resistance training make you hungrier? Does aerobic exercise make you think more about your diet? Did the AT group actually eat nothing but cake on the untracked days, which exerted magical cake-weight-loss effects? I mean, maybe we're missing out on the Nothing But Cake diet!Agreed, though HIIT is usually as much anaerobic as aerobic so should not be used in a study of aerobics. And extrapolating any single study's results beyond the study parameters is rarely a good idea.
Well, yeah, that's my point. I mean, not extrapolating, not the specific example. I mean, I'd say their circuit training is more aerobic than resistance, but they're claiming that it proves that running is better than weightlifting, because I guess it makes a better headline than "low intensity aerobic exercise is better than low intensity Fitlinxx machine usage if you are measuring only fat loss, at least if you're eating less while you're doing the LISS than the resistance circuit, but neither of them are really very useful at all so you should probably just sit on the couch instead."0 -
I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to look at a study on this when you can just read some posts from this forum to see who gets what kind of results.0
-
I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to look at a study on this when you can just read some posts from this forum to see who gets what kind of results.
Because posts on a free internet site provide more reliable data than a clinical study?0 -
I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to look at a study on this when you can just read some posts from this forum to see who gets what kind of results.
Because posts on a free internet site provide more reliable data than a clinical study?
Yes, 500 posts from people with before and after pics and whatnot mean much more to me than stupidly conducted studies0 -
Well, yeah, that's my point. I mean, not extrapolating, not the specific example. I mean, I'd say their circuit training is more aerobic than resistance, but they're claiming that it proves that running is better than weightlifting, because I guess it makes a better headline than "low intensity aerobic exercise is better than low intensity Fitlinxx machine usage if you are measuring only fat loss, at least if you're eating less while you're doing the LISS than the resistance circuit, but neither of them are really very useful at all so you should probably just sit on the couch instead."
I'm sure they'd never use your headline because everthing rom the words "neither are really very useful" is untrue.0 -
Failbut neither of them are really very useful at all so you should probably just sit on the couch instead."0 -
I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to look at a study on this when you can just read some posts from this forum to see who gets what kind of results.
Because posts on a free internet site provide more reliable data than a clinical study?
Yes, 500 posts from people with before and after pics and whatnot mean much more to me than stupidly conducted studies
But, of course.0 -
I could be wrong as I only read through the study once, but since the focus of the study was not diet or even weight loss, but specifically the difference in fat loss from aerobic vs resistance exercise, I think they did not instruct the participants to diet (which seems logical to me). And while people love to point out the inaccuracy of recall interviews for diet, it really is hard to find a good number of study participants willing to be locked away for 32 weeks so their diet can be monitored. It's pretty standard in these types of studies.
This is true, and that's fine, but they didn't control for diet in any way. If you go look at the chart, the RT group ate more calories at the end of the study than the AT group did. But they're drawing the conclusion that it was the exercise that made them lose the weight and not the caloric intake, which, uh, I see as problematic. And only measuring at the beginning and end leaves a big unknown gap. Does resistance training make you hungrier? Does aerobic exercise make you think more about your diet? Did the AT group actually eat nothing but cake on the untracked days, which exerted magical cake-weight-loss effects? I mean, maybe we're missing out on the Nothing But Cake diet!
The differences in food intake were statistically non-significant. They show that by publishing the P Values.Agreed, though HIIT is usually as much anaerobic as aerobic so should not be used in a study of aerobics. And extrapolating any single study's results beyond the study parameters is rarely a good idea.
Well, yeah, that's my point. I mean, not extrapolating, not the specific example. I mean, I'd say their circuit training is more aerobic than resistance, but they're claiming that it proves that running is better than weightlifting, because I guess it makes a better headline than "low intensity aerobic exercise is better than low intensity Fitlinxx machine usage if you are measuring only fat loss, at least if you're eating less while you're doing the LISS than the resistance circuit, but neither of them are really very useful at all so you should probably just sit on the couch instead."
They didn't do only running. The AT was the "equivalent of running 12 miles per week". Later in the methods part, they stated that a number of modalities were utilized. The intensity of the AT was kept at 65%-80% of HRmax (as verified by the baseline VO2max test), which is not HIIT by any means, but is hardly "low-intensity aerobic".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions