Study shows jogging is better than weight lifting

Options

Replies

  • kellyscomeback
    kellyscomeback Posts: 1,369 Member
    Options
    Cardio and diet greatly affect your waistline.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    Anyone got any popcorn?

    Good luck.
  • mama2daboyz
    mama2daboyz Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I think the latest studies that rant about cardio "making you fat" is because people generally aren't counting calories, and then end up eating more throughout the day when they do cardio.

    That being said, it is pretty well-documented that the more muscle you have, the more calories your body burns each day. AND, as we get older, we start losing our muscle (and a lot faster if we don't maintain them through some sort of weight training type of regimen.)

    Some say that too much cardio makes you lose both muscle and fat, but I'm not sure how much support those beliefs get.

    So, I would say the best choice would be to do both!
  • knittnponder
    knittnponder Posts: 1,954 Member
    Options
    I do cardio AND strength training so I guess my butt (and belly) are covered either way. ;)
  • koosdel
    koosdel Posts: 3,317 Member
    Options
    BS.

    12 miles jogging vrs 3 sets of 8 to 12 reps... WHAT?

    In conclusion, BS.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    You always have to look at the details. The abstract reports that this was a study based on subjects who were obese and sedentary and that looked at the effects of different types of training on visceral fat. So before anyone jumps to conclusions, we have to make sure we understand the scope of the research.

    The groups were divided into aerobic only training (AT), resistance-only training (RT and full aerobic, full resistance (AT/RT).

    AT did equivalent of 12 miles/wk at 75% peak VO2
    RT did 8 exercises, 3 d/wk, 3 sets, 8-12 reps

    Results showed that AT and AT/RT showed statistically significantly greater decrease in visceral fat. RT showed decrease in subcutaneous fat but not visceral.

    Unfortunately, our medical library only has abstracts. In this case, reading the full study is crucial to a greater understanding of the results.

    For the mass media, this makes for an attention-getting headline. In terms of practical significance, it might broaden our knowledge, but I don't think it changes what we already know about exercise intervention for this population.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    Thanks Azdak. I couldn't find the abstract.

    Where is the info re the diets these people are on? If that is not controlled then it pretty much makes the study worthless. Create calorific deficit through diet and exercise = lose weight. Do strength training and still eat heaps and therefore not create a calorific deficit = no weight loss (possible gain) and same applies for running.

    It also didn't specify what type of resistance training exercises were done. 3 sets of bicep curls is slightly different to 3 sets of deadlifts/squats.
  • scagneti
    scagneti Posts: 707 Member
    Options
    I don't remember anyone forcing me to choose one or the other before I lost my weight.
  • mama2daboyz
    mama2daboyz Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    I think it's also important to note that most of us on here started as obese/overweight and/or sedentary. Sure, fitness buffs lose fat waaaaay differently. But, what is the best for people who truly NEED to lose weight?

    75% of Americans overeat--so yes, diet is a start, but if they want to lose the weight faster, they've got to get moving, plain and simple.

    Take your average obese American, eating junk like potato chips, give them a cardio routine vs. a weight routine, INITIALLY the weight will come off real fast with the cardio (combined with eating right, of course, which really is the biggest challenge for most Americans).
  • mrskris10
    mrskris10 Posts: 5
    Options
    I say do both!

    I am a half marathon runner, so obviously I am a cardio lover. But I do strength training often because
    1) it helps with my running/protects my body from injury.
    2) I like to mix it up.

    Diet and exercise (no matter what kind) is good for you.
  • scagneti
    scagneti Posts: 707 Member
    Options
    BS.

    12 miles jogging vrs 3 sets of 8 to 12 reps... WHAT?

    In conclusion, BS.

    That is hilarious. 3 sets of 8 reps (not even saying if it was a strenous weight for the participants or if it was like 3s) takes what, 5 minutes x 3 times a week. So, 15 minutes A WEEK of weights vs 12 miles of jogging?? That's several hours for some people.

    So apparently several hours of exercise vs. 15 minutes per week yields better results. Duh.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Thanks Azdak. I couldn't find the abstract.

    Where is the info re the diets these people are on? If that is not controlled then it pretty much makes the study worthless. Create calorific deficit through diet and exercise = lose weight. Do strength training and still eat heaps and therefore not create a calorific deficit = no weight loss (possible gain) and same applies for running.

    It also didn't specify what type of resistance training exercises were done. 3 sets of bicep curls is slightly different to 3 sets of deadlifts/squats.

    I have found that in studies like this you really have to read the whole study before you can really comment--positively or negatively. There are just too many details that have to be known before drawing any conclusions about the practical significance of the results.

    And let me restate, since from the comments I have read most people are reflexively reacting to the headline without thinking about what they are typing, that you have to look at the specific population looked at here and also what was studied.

    Population: obese, sedentary individuals, ages 18-70. Focus of study: changes in visceral fat.

    You have to start somewhere and you have to keep the scope of a study limited in order to get anything meaningful. And the results of this study lead to other areas of investigation, and you gradually fill out the picture. I can't say without reading the actual study, but I suspect that the resistance routine was selected to meet the "customary" lifting guidelines followed by most beginners who walk into a gym. Another researcher might decide to compare continuous cardio to interval cardio, heavier weights, etc.

    In fact, the general conclusions of this study are not out of line with the consensus guidelines for sedentary, obese individuals.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    BS.

    12 miles jogging vrs 3 sets of 8 to 12 reps... WHAT?

    In conclusion, BS.

    That is hilarious. 3 sets of 8 reps (not even saying if it was a strenous weight for the participants or if it was like 3s) takes what, 5 minutes x 3 times a week. So, 15 minutes A WEEK of weights vs 12 miles of jogging?? That's several hours for some people.

    So apparently several hours of exercise vs. 15 minutes per week yields better results. Duh.

    The newspaper story cited made an error in reporting. The resistance component consisted of 8 exercises, each done 3 sets of 8-12 reps.
  • tameko2
    tameko2 Posts: 31,634 Member
    Options
    BS.

    12 miles jogging vrs 3 sets of 8 to 12 reps... WHAT?

    In conclusion, BS.

    That is hilarious. 3 sets of 8 reps (not even saying if it was a strenous weight for the participants or if it was like 3s) takes what, 5 minutes x 3 times a week. So, 15 minutes A WEEK of weights vs 12 miles of jogging?? That's several hours for some people.

    So apparently several hours of exercise vs. 15 minutes per week yields better results. Duh.

    The newspaper story cited made an error in reporting. The resistance component consisted of 8 exercises, each done 3 sets of 8-12 reps.

    it would still take a LOT less time to do that than to jog 12 miles. Does the abstract say how many weeks?
  • PenTool
    PenTool Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    Here is the abstract (re-formatted by me for clarity):

    "The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of Aerobic Training (AT), Resistance Training (RT) and the full combination (AT/RT) on central ectopic fat, liver enzymes and fasting insulin resistance (HOMA).

    In a randomized trial, 249 subjects, 18 to 70 years old, overweight, sedentary, and with moderate dyslipidemia (LDL cholesterol 130-190 mg/dL; or HDL cholesterol ≤40 mg/dL for men or ≤45 mg/dL for women), performed an initial four-month run-in period.

    Of these, 196 finished the run-in and were randomized into one of the following eight-month exercise training groups:

    1) RT: 3 d/wk, 8 exercises, 3 sets/exercise, 8-12 repetitions/set

    2) AT: equivalent to ~19.2 km/wk (12 miles/wk) at 75% peakVO2

    3) full Aerobic Training plus full Resistance Training (AT/RT),

    ..with 155 subjects completing the intervention.

    The primary outcome variables were: visceral and liver fat via computed tomography, plasma liver enzymes, and HOMA.

    Aerobic Traingin led to significant reductions in liver fat, visceral fat, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), HOMA and both total and subcutaneous abdominal fat (all P<0.05).

    Resistance Training resulted in a decrease in subcutaneous abdominal fat (P<0.05), but did not significantly improve the other variables.

    Aerobic Training was more effective than Resistance Training at improving visceral fat, liver to spleen ratio, total abdominal fat (all P<0.05) and trended towards a greater reduction in liver fat score (P<0.10).

    The effects of combined AT/RT were statistically indistinguishable from AT.

    These data show that for overweight and obese individuals who want to reduce measures of visceral fat and fatty liver infiltration and improve HOMA and ALT, a moderate amount of aerobic exercise is the most time efficient and effective exercise mode."
  • gnat45
    gnat45 Posts: 833 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the comments, especially for posting the abstract.

Categories