Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cardio only in a deficit: Muscle loss?
a45cal
Posts: 85 Member
I made a statement on someone's thread in the weight loss board which turned into a debate between me and another poster and was sort of hijacking that OP's topic. So I wanted to kick it over here and hopefully get the input of people who're better informed on biological processes/empirical evidence on the topic than I am.
What I said was basically that either only eating in a deficit (with no exercise), or doing so while doing only steady-state cardio (not HIIT) would result in both fat and muscle being burned, and lead to the "skinny-fat" look. (Part of why strength training is suggested to preserve muscle while losing weight.) That's something I feel like I've read a ton of places, including the books of well-respected trainers. And which, purely observationally, seems to make sense.
Another poster felt like that was outdated broscience and that there was no evidence that cardio-only workouts caused/failed to prevent muscle loss. This prompted me to look for studies on the subject, but my search came up empty. I don't know if I was using the wrong search terms or what, but I couldn't seem to find any studies which had even addressed the topic.
Does anyone know of empirical evidence which either supports or debunks this idea? It's frustrating to think you "know" something and only have sources like "some guy writing an article on T-Nation" as evidence. (Or to just be wrong and not know it.)
What I said was basically that either only eating in a deficit (with no exercise), or doing so while doing only steady-state cardio (not HIIT) would result in both fat and muscle being burned, and lead to the "skinny-fat" look. (Part of why strength training is suggested to preserve muscle while losing weight.) That's something I feel like I've read a ton of places, including the books of well-respected trainers. And which, purely observationally, seems to make sense.
Another poster felt like that was outdated broscience and that there was no evidence that cardio-only workouts caused/failed to prevent muscle loss. This prompted me to look for studies on the subject, but my search came up empty. I don't know if I was using the wrong search terms or what, but I couldn't seem to find any studies which had even addressed the topic.
Does anyone know of empirical evidence which either supports or debunks this idea? It's frustrating to think you "know" something and only have sources like "some guy writing an article on T-Nation" as evidence. (Or to just be wrong and not know it.)
3
Replies
-
I was under the impression there's always muscle loss in a deficit no matter what you do, it's just the level of loss that changes.
Also, if you don't use it, you lose it.4 -
I made a statement on someone's thread in the weight loss board which turned into a debate between me and another poster and was sort of hijacking that OP's topic. So I wanted to kick it over here and hopefully get the input of people who're better informed on biological processes/empirical evidence on the topic than I am.
What I said was basically that either only eating in a deficit (with no exercise), or doing so while doing only steady-state cardio (not HIIT) would result in both fat and muscle being burned, and lead to the "skinny-fat" look. (Part of why strength training is suggested to preserve muscle while losing weight.) That's something I feel like I've read a ton of places, including the books of well-respected trainers. And which, purely observationally, seems to make sense.
Another poster felt like that was outdated broscience and that there was no evidence that cardio-only workouts caused/failed to prevent muscle loss. This prompted me to look for studies on the subject, but my search came up empty. I don't know if I was using the wrong search terms or what, but I couldn't seem to find any studies which had even addressed the topic.
Does anyone know of empirical evidence which either supports or debunks this idea? It's frustrating to think you "know" something and only have sources like "some guy writing an article on T-Nation" as evidence. (Or to just be wrong and not know it.)
Well, do you accept animal studies?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284031 -
I haven't looked at studies myself, but I remember someone said (Eric helmes?) that weight training is an adaptive stimulus, and it kinda forces your body to not use muscle as a source of energy.
Meaning, you take that stimulus away, and the adaptive component goes away too1 -
-
Muscle isn't a preferred fuel source - you have to be seriously doing something wrong with your diet (not your exercise) for your body to "burn muscle for fuel".
The thought that cardio automatically results in muscle loss is patently ludicrous - otherwise all those elite athletes that train a lot are doing it wrong as the more they trained the weaker they would get.
Also remember that not all cardio is the same and have differing levels of resistance built in - hence the different physiques between serious rowers, swimmers, runners etc....
Steady state cardio doesn't necessarily equal easy low intensity, think a one hour bicycle time trial - high intensity but steady state. Intervals doesn't necessarily mean short duration.
A lot depends on your starting point of course, someone who goes from completely sedentary to exercising is increasing their muscle stimulus whether that's from cardio or strength/resistance training. Strength training is probably the strongest stimulus though.
Conversely if you change nothing but your calorie level you are reducing your muscle stimulus as you are lugging less weight around.
And no muscle loss in a deficit can't be a universal true blanket statement as some people manage to add muscle in a period of moderate or short term calorie deficit. If you want to do some complex mathematics you can also show that people recomping (gaining muscle / losing fat/ maintaining bodyweight) are actually at a very small caloric deficit (you have to consider stored energy not just CICO to understand why).
Be careful not to confuse the almost guaranteed loss of lean body mass when losing significant amounts of weight with saying that's muscle loss - muscle is but one component of lean mass.19 -
I would say it's true. I did almost all cardio for a year and lost over 80lbs total and I can tell I lost some muscle. I kept telling myself to lift and then gym didn't happen so I'd hit the neighborhood for walks and some sprints. Two years later I have noticeable muscle and strength loss.
Starting to eat maintenance and plus on alternate weeks and lift more now but wish I'd done it to begin with now. At 46 it's going to be even harder now to gain muscle mass.0 -
Muscle isn't a preferred fuel source - you have to be seriously doing something wrong with your diet (not your exercise) for your body to "burn muscle for fuel".
The thought that cardio automatically results in muscle loss is patently ludicrous - otherwise all those elite athletes that train a lot are doing it wrong as the more they trained the weaker they would get.
Also remember that not all cardio is the same and have differing levels of resistance built in - hence the different physiques between serious rowers, swimmers, runners etc....
Steady state cardio doesn't necessarily equal easy low intensity, think a one hour bicycle time trial - high intensity but steady state. Intervals doesn't necessarily mean short duration.
A lot depends on your starting point of course, someone who goes from completely sedentary to exercising is increasing their muscle stimulus whether that's from cardio or strength/resistance training. Strength training is probably the strongest stimulus though.
Conversely if you change nothing but your calorie level you are reducing your muscle stimulus as you are lugging less weight around.
And no muscle loss in a deficit can't be a universal true blanket statement as some people manage to add muscle in a period of moderate or short term calorie deficit. If you want to do some complex mathematics you can also show that people recomping (gaining muscle / losing fat/ maintaining bodyweight) are actually at a very small caloric deficit (you have to consider stored energy not just CICO to understand why).
Be careful not to confuse the almost guaranteed loss of lean body mass when losing significant amounts of weight with saying that's muscle loss - muscle is but one component of lean mass.
I approve this post.5 -
This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).
Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339
I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.
I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.
Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.
10 -
This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).
Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339
I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.
I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.
Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.
All I have read and from my personal experience having lost over 350 before tells me this is correct. Adequate protein while in a calorie deficit is the key to being muscle sparing. Of course as he posted there are many benifical reasons to make resistance training.6 -
Several posters above have already made good points, which I won't parrot. The tl;dr answer is "it depends".
Although he's speaking of bulking rather than cutting in this instance, here's an article by Lyle McDonald which offers some insight into the pros and cons of cardio relative to muscle gain (and some of the involved factors):
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/cardio-and-mass-gains.html/1 -
Just wanted to check in and thank everyone who's responded. I'm battling a sinus infection today that's making it hard to think, let alone make any sort of intelligent reply, but I wanted to let everyone know I'm paying attention and appreciate the information.6
-
EricNewark wrote: »I would say it's true. I did almost all cardio for a year and lost over 80lbs total and I can tell I lost some muscle. I kept telling myself to lift and then gym didn't happen so I'd hit the neighborhood for walks and some sprints. Two years later I have noticeable muscle and strength loss.
Starting to eat maintenance and plus on alternate weeks and lift more now but wish I'd done it to begin with now. At 46 it's going to be even harder now to gain muscle mass.
At 48 (next week) I agree... but I for me the hardest part of it is finding the time as life and work make more demands than when I bulked up in my 20s. My wife doesn't approve of my calorie logging, so I have to slip it in on the fly. I only use it to keep a daily track anyway... if I overeat one day, I don't try to cut extra the next... I just work on from where I am at.
That is why I find it much easier to train at home in the early morning while the rest of the family are asleep. I can get it done then go to work, without wasting time commuting to the gymn as well as commuting to work!
BTW... the good news is that at 46 I actually gained a lot of muscle mass quite easily when doing sprint swims every morning.
4 -
Awesome so there is some hope. Lol
Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.
I know... I know it's all excuses
2 -
EricNewark wrote: »Awesome so there is some hope. Lol
Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.
I know... I know it's all excuses
Make your health and body your priority and you'll be surprised how many opportunities there are. 20 minutes is really not that far in the grand scheme of thing and I'm sure there are gyms near your work or en route home.4 -
trigden1991 wrote: »EricNewark wrote: »Awesome so there is some hope. Lol
Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.
I know... I know it's all excuses
Make your health and body your priority and you'll be surprised how many opportunities there are. 20 minutes is really not that far in the grand scheme of thing and I'm sure there are gyms near your work or en route home.
Pretty much this.
To paraphrase Jim Wendler a bit, you give 8-12 hours per day to your boss. You give god knows how much to your family. Isn't it about time you started giving some to yourself? It's not like it would be being dithered away either. You'd be reinvesting that time into improving the only thing you ever truly own: yourself.3 -
EricNewark wrote: »Awesome so there is some hope. Lol
Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.
I know... I know it's all excuses
Is it 20 minutes measuring from home or work? I ask because I find it easiest way to get in a workout to go right before or after work, and with that having something close to work (or on the way between the two) would be useful. (I'm lucky that I have something super close, so can also go at lunch.)0 -
EricNewark wrote: »Awesome so there is some hope. Lol
Finding time is a pain too.. I commute to work an hour one way, work 9-10 hrs and we have 4 kids. I get up at 5 and don't finally settle down until about 9 most evenings and honestly I'm ready to pass out at that point. Kids are becoming more self sufficient now though so hoping that will change here soon. I don't have any equipment (some small things did go on Xmas list this year) and the closest gym is 20+ mins away.
I know... I know it's all excuses
If you watch regular tv, you can do some quick walking during the commercials. Shows usually have 15-20 minutes worth of ads.2 -
Not sure if your right or wrong, but as for me it seemed like I wasn't losing weight and rebuilding muscle. Because I was into bodybuilding until age 42 and then stopped because of a stroke (T.I.A.). But as I got older and heavier I returned to gym 20 yrs. later. I was hitting the gym 4 times a week and I was walking and biking along with strength training, but low weights. I was losing body fat, but weight didn't come down. I became discourage the Dr. told me I was rebuilding muscle that's way no weight lose. So I guess if your not doing strength training you may lose muscle along with fat.0
-
This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).
Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339
I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.
I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.
Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
This one is a lot older than your study but it demonstrates roughly the same thing.0 -
This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).
Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339
I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.
I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.
Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
This one is a lot older than your study but it demonstrates roughly the same thing.
But it also says that that the C+D group doing walking, biking and stair climbing, lost significantly more total body weight than the resistance group. Too bad the abstract doesn't say how much more.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »This is the problem with making blanket declarative statements. There are a number of variables in this scenario including type and intensity of cardio, definition of "muscle loss", diet, beginning mass, calorie deficit, etc. (and others that have been mentioned).
Protein intake can significantly influence changes in muscle mass. In this study, subjects gained muscle even while doing intense exercise with a high calorie deficit: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2016/01/26/ajcn.115.119339
I have tested a number of people who went on VLC diets with modest exercise which showed that 33% of their scale weight loss was lean mass.
I have had others who kept their protein intake over 100g per day, lost 50 pounds in 5 months doing a lot of cardio, did almost no weight lifting, incurred 1000-1500 kcal deficits per day and lost no muscle at all.
Ideally, resistance training should be part of any exercise or weight loss routine. The benefits--especially with maintaining the weight loss long-term--are irrefutable. But it's not a black/white issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
This one is a lot older than your study but it demonstrates roughly the same thing.
But it also says that that the C+D group doing walking, biking and stair climbing, lost significantly more total body weight than the resistance group. Too bad the abstract doesn't say how much more.
Yea it is a shame its only an abstract. I suspect the increase in bw was mainly due to increases in expenditure due to a 4 day workout program vs 3 day resistance program.0
This discussion has been closed.
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