Muscle and Brawn Forums - Exercise and Fat Loss

Muscle and Brawn Forums (http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/)

- General Fitness & Health (http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/general-fitness-health/)

- - Exercise and Fat Loss (http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/general-fitness-health/7485-exercise-fat-loss.html)

Exercise and Fat Loss

Quote:

It’s no secret that diet outperforms exercise for fat loss. A recent study (that I mentioned HERE) confirmed that.

However some people have taken this concept and said that exercise just doesn’t work for fat loss period.
Not true. Not true AT ALL.

You see, all of the studies that look at exercise tend to look at aerobic exercise. The ones that look at weight training nearly always use machine based exercises and isolation exercises.

...

So let’s look at the findings –
After 8 months of aerobic training the participants lost 4.4lbs (total weight – they didn’t measure body comp)
After 8 months of resistance training they lost 1.76lbs

Obviously 4lbs is way better than 1.76lbs but I wouldn’t say either program really worked would you?
And if we point out what the researchers said – the resistance training program burned 33% of the calories of the aerobic program (seriously, what kind of weight training program is that?) – but actually lost 40% as much fat. Isn’t that a better “return on investment?”

Regardless, the aerobic group involved running 12-20 miles per week. The average weight of the participant was 195lbs. Considering the time spent running each week – this would average out to be around 1800 or so calories burned per week (I used an 11 min mile average).

The researchers stated that the aerobic group burned 67% more calories than the resistance group. That means on average (again I’m extrapolating the data) – the resistance training group burned around 594 calories.

And this is the part that doesn’t make sense. The resistance training group averaged 135-180 mins training per week. That’s at the high end, 4.4 calories per minute spent training. Again – what kind of resistance training program burns that few calories per minute? (Especially in light of Scott’s work showing that 8 minutes of weight training burned somewhere between 159 and 231 calories)

My conclusion? “A well structured high intensity cardio program at 80% max heart rate for 12-20 miles per week was just 60% more effective than a machine based weight training routine, particularly when the cardio program burned 67% more calories”

It goes on to clarify some things, it's a pretty decent set of recommendations.

From the article:

Training for fat loss needs to include:

1) An emphasis on building muscle or at the very least maintaining muscle.
2) Make that muscle work – hard – in multiple movements and multiple planes of motion
3) Make that muscle work FAST. Power could be the missing factor in fat loss training.
4) Make the metabolism WORK – short rest periods, high work density – ramp up energy expenditure during and post-workout
5) And we add in non traditional interval training – where we work the whole body hard, working more muscle and more movements than traditional cardio
6) And we still add traditional cardio when needed :)

Also

We know that free weight training is superior to machine training. We’re using suspension training, triplanar movements, sleds, ropes, tires, sandbags etc. We use unilateral exercise, offset loading, dynamic variable resistance training. We know that supersets burn more calories than straight sets in the same time frame. We’ve seen that explosive lifts burn more calories during and after training than slow lifts so we add those too.

So we use full body workouts, compound movements, short or incomplete rest periods, self limiting exercises, explosive lifts, performed in a superset fashion. We screen clients so that we can attack their weak movements and therefore weak muscle groups and therefore increase metabolism (all of them are linked). We periodize the plan and track the variables, constantly tweaking and upgrading the program as we go.

Quote:

So let’s look at the findings –
After 8 months of aerobic training the participants lost 4.4lbs (total weight – they didn’t measure body comp)
After 8 months of resistance training they lost 1.76lbs

Obviously 4lbs is way better than 1.76lbs but I wouldn’t say either program really worked would you?

Amazing! 1.76 lbs loss and 4 lbs loss, and neither worked; if they didn't take body composition in to account for the aerobic training, they certainly didn't for the resistance based training either.

This is where studies can be considered a major FAIL.

I come from a family of farmers and often heard the phrase:

...working up and appetite.

Exercise certainly makes you healthier, but it also makes you hungry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 176579)

I come from a family of farmers and often heard the phrase:

...working up an appetite.

Exercise certainly makes you healthier, but it also makes you hungry.

True, but I notice that the body, at least for me, only requests as much as it knows it needs and I still end up losing weight unless I really go for broke with the food; it's when I'm not working out that weight gain starts, even with less eating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5kgLifter (Post 176581)

I guess for me when I look at fat gain it comes down to the types of foods being eaten. When you work up an appetite are you eating a pork chop and some spinach or a bag of Doritos and a Mountain Dew? What is the nutritional value?

When someone is hungry, and eats empty calories...

I find myself eating more at night when I have a carb-heavy meal. I tend to crave fat or salt later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BendtheBar (Post 176575)

Exercise doesn’t work for fat loss?

(Especially in light of Scott’s work showing that 8 minutes of weight training burned somewhere between 159 and 231 calories)

Dieting does not work for fat loss, is like saying: Let a person sit on their ass, set a deficit (in calories, or carbohydrates), and let the body run its course in choosing in what---it eats for dinner when it begins to eat itself. Excerise on the other hand,.........can change this bahavior.

Though dieting is primarily about calories, this is not the only thing that can be manipulated to solicate fat loss, we must include macros. And, exercise can manipulate calories and macros--dependent what the exercise type is.

Not going to burn 150 to 200 calories "weight training" for 8 minutes, this is ludacraus--dependent on some personal factors, (weight, age, etc, etc). On average "working toward an hour" will burn 200 or more calories (dependent on intensity, and individual particulars). In addition, the energy pathways (used) as calories (energy) are different. For example, Weight training primarily uses carbohydrate carlories as its "primary" source of fuel, which is why this particular exercise type is very good in a diet geared around glucose depletion. Sure one could deplete their personal stored glucose without weight training (diet dependent), it would take significanty more time, however.

Let us remember, the body does not discriminate, and will use the calories necessary for its needs: Be it muscle or fat tissue. Weight training exercise sends various signals to keep and not use muscle for fuel, though it does not completely eliminate it.

Though muscle is "primarily water" (which is why one can go flat/look dry/not full on glucose depletions), I read somewhere (going to try to find this) that one pound of muscle is about.....600 calories as compared to about 3,500 approximate calories for a pound of fat. Dieting to lose tissue and exercise will be forever the married couple. A persons physique dieting to lose tissue whom does not train, will look vastly different than one that is dieting to lose tissue and does train.

Peeps: Live today, the way you want to live tomorrow.