Aerobics best for fat loss

Azdak

The first thing to look at in a study is the rationale for doing the study and the reason for structuring the research study as stated. The rationale is stated in the abstract:

Yet few studies have compared the effects of similar amounts of aerobic and resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight adults.

This is further explained in the introduction:

Although professional organizations have historically focused exercise guidelines on endurance or aerobic training (AT) for weight loss and maintenance (14), recent guidelines and position statements targeting body weight reduction and maintenance have suggested that resistance training (RT) may also be effective for reducing fat mass (11). In some cases, guidelines may lead to misperceptions among clinicians, exercise professionals, and laypersons about the strength of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of RT for inducing weight and fat mass loss (11, 20, 32), leading the reader to believe that RT has been conclusively shown to reduce fat mass. However, a close examination of the published literature reveals that randomized controlled trials are inconclusive on this point (7, 9, 19, 23, 24, 26).

Given the imperative of reducing obesity rates, exercise guidelines must be based upon unequivocal evidence of specific relations between exercise mode and changes in body mass and fat mass.

Couple of points to note:

1. A key part of this study was comparing "similar amounts" of aerobic and resistance training. The exercise protocols were designed to closely reflect the consensus guidelines for aerobic and resistance training for adults. The authors wanted to use a "real-world" design, with an exercise protocol that more closely resembled what the average person would follow.

2. They point out that, while many people are recommending resistance exercise for reducing fat mass, the published literature does not conclusively support those statements. I think this is an important point to emphasize, because it is a constant theme in discussions about exercise. A lot of what people "know" to be "true" is based on anecdotal evidence or groupthink (see: any discussion about heart rate monitors). But when subject to the rigors of scientific inquiry and larger, random population samples, we find that these "accepted ideas" do not hold for the general population, or that the "results" of an intervention are due to something completely different (see: claims of results from using HCG).

Now a literature review is also not automatically conclusive. However, most of the time when I have seen sloppy conclusions draw from lit reviews, it is from articles or papers "published" on individual websites, etc. In this case, I am going to assume that in a peer-reviewed study, the conclusions of the literature review are reliable--but certainly that is a valid area for someone to explore and question the quality of the paper as a whole.

Another way to examine the scope and focus of the study is to look at the population sample and the research protocol.

1. This was a study that looked at sedentary, overweight adults. So a fit person, an experienced lifter/bodybuilder, etc is not really going to fit the population sample. To criticize a study that specifically decided to study sedentary, overweight guys for not taking into consideration the experiences of experienced, big-muscle guys is like reviewing the movie "Lincoln" and giving it only one star because it didn't include musical dance numbers.

2. The exercise training was designed to follow the national guidelines most commonly recommend for resistance training.

The RT exercise prescription used in this study represents the upper limit of the amount recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine in terms of both sessions per week and number of sets per session

Now, some people might question the effectiveness of these guidelines. Someone who is an experienced lifter, focusing on gains in muscle mass, might look at the protocol (8 machine exercises, 3 sets of 8-12 reps, 3 days per week) and claim that is not "real lifting". That may well be true. However, that protocol IS consistent with the most widely prescribed guidelines and is more likely to resemble the type of routine the AVERAGE, SEDENTARY adult is going to follow. In fact, I would say it's a higher volume of resistance training than the average person is going to follow.

Remember: if you are a BTMG (Big Time Muscle Guy), this study is not about you. It is not questioning your workout methods, nor your manhood. No one is threatening your treehouse, so there is no need to bring out the pitchforks and torches.

The study was well done within its stated goals. They did a good job of coming up with a large, randomized sample, free of confounding variables. They improved on the weakness of some other studies in this area by making sure that the total times spent exercising were comparable. While they did not make the workouts isocaloric, the total exercise minutes helped minimized the energy differences between the workouts--avg aerobic training time was 133 min/wk, avg resistance training time was ~180 min/wk. Sessions were monitored and supervised so that quality of workouts was consistent, and they had a very high compliance rate.

The results table is there for anyone to see.

I think one thing that stands out is how little changes there were in any of the studied measurements, given the length of the program. The lack of rigid control of caloric intake has been cited as a weakness, but I am not sure it is--for this study. I think that in a large group like this, individual variances in eating habits will even out and I think there was a certain consistency in caloric intake, as shown by the NS differences at baseline and at program end. They did not list (or I didn't see) any dietary instructions that may have been given to participants. I suspect there is more to the research design than we know, and I would imagine that what they did was consistent with other studies of this type--although I would like to know more about that part myself. It could also be that they wanted calorie intake to be consistent in order to show that any changes would be more due to the exercise effects (that would be another reason why overall weight loss was so small).

I also find it interesting that the authors (and other studies like this) don't seem to place much importance on overall changes in body fat %. They seem to focus only on reductions in fat mass. Not sure if that is convention, a reflection of national attitudes towards public health, a lack of interest in what a lot of active exercisers think is very important (increases in muscle mass), or an acknowledgement that, in the general public, significant increases in muscle mass are not likely to occur and therefore the subject is not that important.

One of the more significant results of this study was the failure of resistance training to effect a significant increase in resting metabolic rate (RMR). Another claim for resistance training is that RT, while not having much of a direct caloric burn, results in a longer "afterburn", which, combined with increases in muscle mass, results in an overall caloric expenditure that can equal that achieved with aerobic training. This is a claim that I see repeated in these forums dozens of times a day. This study showed no evidence of either.

For those on the RT side of the discussion, I think the argument is clear: the study did not really feature the kind of "heavy lifting" that would support both the "afterburn" and increases in LBM. That is shown by the fact that LBM increased only by an average of 2.4 lb in the RT group (less in the combined AT/RT group).

So I think that those who engage in more vigorous and robust lifting programs can feel secure that these results don't say anything one way or the other about the efficacy of those types of programs. Which circles back once again to the importance of interpreting study results in the context in which they are obtained.

In conclusion, however, when looking at the significance of this study, I think the "real world" implications are important. Many of the critical remarks I have seen have reacted strongly to the type of RT performed--that it is not "real" weight training, or the authors "don't know anything about weight training". I would counter by saying that the subject population and the lifting protocol described in this study are far more reflective of the population as a whole, and so these results have more overall relevance.

Again, the idea that "lifting weights increases muscle which burns more calories at rest" is repeated on these forums and elsewhere like it was a holy mantra. Rarely, however, is there any distinction made as to the type of lifting or intensity of lifting necessary to achieve that effect. The claim is made for everything from Olympic powerlifting, to circuit training, to the calisthenics that pass for "weight training" in a Jillian Michaels video, to walking with hand weights. In that context, the type of lifting done in this study is more significant. These people did, on average, 60 sets per week for 8 weeks--resulting in exactly bupkis in terms of increased metabolism or fat loss--or significant muscle gain, for that matter.

Jynus

^^^^ to comment about this.

1) they do not control diet, the MOST important factor by FAR for fat loss.

2) they do not do a real resistance training template. look at EVERY real beginner template recommended on here. Notice trends? no machines, free weights with lots of compound movements based upon linear progression. SS, SL, NRFL etc. All beginner resistance training templates that look NOTHING like what was used in the study.

Pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject. this is study comparing fat loss when the diet and exercise protocols were deeply flawed for the resistance training group. While the cardio group only had diet protocols flawed. How anyone needs to spend more than a few sentences on this subject to even start to defend this study as valid is laughable and seriously puts questions to any credibility you may have on anything health and fitness related... seriously.

upgetupgetup

^^^^ to comment about this.

1) they do not control diet, the MOST important factor by FAR for fat loss.

That was addressed. Diet will vary in the population, and the study's about the state of fat mass of an overweight population, not the 5% or less who body build and watch protein macros. Because the sample size was big enough, differences in diet were accounted for.

2) they do not do a real resistance training template. look at EVERY real beginner template recommended on here. Notice trends? no machines, free weights with lots of compound movements based upon linear progression. SS, SL, NRFL etc. All beginner resistance training templates that look NOTHING like what was used in the study.

Also addressed: study used the current recommended guidelines for general fitness, not for body building. People who do that are a kind of special population, and the general point of this was about a more statistically significant population (there are more overweight people who'll use a program like this, it's for them).

Also, Azdak, really great intro on how to read a study.

Bakkasan

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

Wait... what? You cannot add to A, not change B, and still = C.

There are some really long avid defenses of this study for some reason. Horrifically flawed indeed, but it reinforces a few "known" points. Cardio is great for fat loss and you also lose LBM. And weight lifters defy physics..

DO BOTH.

In fact, the favorite argument and "you are no snowflake" paradigm is violated: Combo group ate the same, did double the work yet lost no additional weight? Calories in calories out, right?

mustgetmuscles1

Im not sure I see the value in this study. Take a bunch of people that are almost completely ignorant of nutrition and exercise practices and compare results based only on what exercise they did.

The only thing I get from this is that people, that dont educate themselves or hire someone to train them, are going to have a painfully slow time getting to a healthy body composition.

We see this everyday on this site and could have saved them the time and money.

MOST of the people on this site that I see advocating resistance training as vital for fat loss are NOT saying that lifting weights burns fat. They are saying that, in a calorie deficit, that the resistance training will preserve LBM making the majority of weight lost, from your calorie deficit, come from body fat. This study, with all its flaws, also proves that.

Has nothing to do with "body builders" or "big time muscle guys" defending their long hel beliefs.

taso42

The only thing I get from this is that people, that dont educate themselves or hire someone to train them, are going to have a painfully slow time getting to a healthy body composition.

best quote in thread

mmapags

Im not sure I see the value in this study. Take a bunch of people that are almost completely ignorant of nutrition and exercise practices and compare results based only on what exercise they did.

The only thing I get from this is that people, that dont educate themselves or hire someone to train them, are going to have a painfully slow time getting to a healthy body composition.

We see this everyday on this site and could have saved them the time and money.

MOST of the people on this site that I see advocating resistance training as vital for fat loss are NOT saying that lifting weights burns fat. They are saying that, in a calorie deficit, that the resistance training will preserve LBM making the majority of weight lost, from your calorie deficit, come from body fat. This study, with all its flaws, also proves that.

Has nothing to do with "body builders" or "big time muscle guys" defending their long hel beliefs.

BAM! Truth.

mmapags

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

Wait... what? You cannot add to A, not change B, and still = C.

There are some really long avid defenses of this study for some reason. Horrifically flawed indeed, but it reinforces a few "known" points. Cardio is great for fat loss and you also lose LBM. And weight lifters defy physics..

DO BOTH.

In fact, the favorite argument and "you are no snowflake" paradigm is violated: Combo group ate the same, did double the work yet lost no additional weight? Calories in calories out, right?

Have you worked out that axe yet or do you still have some more to grind?

SideSteel

I wouldn't call this study useless, I just think it's important to take the study for what it's showing and not take it out of context.

Azdak

^^^^ to comment about this.

1) they do not control diet, the MOST important factor by FAR for fat loss.

Again, not the point of the study. There was no significant difference in caloric across the three groups. The whole point was to look at the effect of exercise alone. You keep referring to some imaginary study that you think should be done, not the one that was actually reported.

2) they do not do a real resistance training template. look at EVERY real beginner template recommended on here. Notice trends? no machines, free weights with lots of compound movements based upon linear progression. SS, SL, NRFL etc. All beginner resistance training templates that look NOTHING like what was used in the study.

This comment is verging on self-parody. You are using the random recommendations of anonymous posters to a fitness message board as evidence of superior efficacy of one type of training? Where is the literature that definitively describes a "real resistance training template"?

Whether you like it or not, the resistance protocol used in this study follows the accepted guidelines published by the major health and fitness organizations--especially for a sedentary, untrained, middle-aged population--and that is the most common one used in comparable studies. It is also followed successfully by millions of people daily. For a study that is investigating the effects of the most common type of training protocol used by a particular population, it wouldn't make sense to choose an exercise routine that, as much as you or I might prefer it, is still a niche program for much of the population.

Is that the best way to train? Probably not. Is that your preference? No. Is it my preference? No. However, this was not a study to determine the optimal way to perform resistance training exercises. The exercise protocol described was more than sufficient for this population to achieve results that could be compared to other modalities.

The authors were manifestly clear about the scope of this research and why they chose the protocols they did. I guess I am not sure why you insist on ignoring that, since you can't really evaluate the study without taking that into consideration.

Pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject. this is study comparing fat loss when the diet and exercise protocols were deeply flawed for the resistance training group. While the cardio group only had diet protocols flawed. How anyone needs to spend more than a few sentences on this subject to even start to defend this study as valid is laughable and seriously puts questions to any credibility you may have on anything health and fitness related... seriously.

<snicker> That is so cute.

Bakkasan

lol nevermind.

diet was not controlled or thermodynamics is being violated. fin

bcattoes

^^^^ to comment about this.

1) they do not control diet, the MOST important factor by FAR for fat loss.

2) they do not do a real resistance training template. look at EVERY real beginner template recommended on here. Notice trends? no machines, free weights with lots of compound movements based upon linear progression. SS, SL, NRFL etc. All beginner resistance training templates that look NOTHING like what was used in the study.

Pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject. this is study comparing fat loss when the diet and exercise protocols were deeply flawed for the resistance training group. While the cardio group only had diet protocols flawed. How anyone needs to spend more than a few sentences on this subject to even start to defend this study as valid is laughable and seriously puts questions to any credibility you may have on anything health and fitness related... seriously.

1) No one is disputing that. But it was not the focus of the study.

2) Recommendations: MFP members vs American College of Sports Medicine. Yep, their choice is shocking.

Jynus definition of valid study vs. Nation Institute of Healths definition of valid study. Seriously?