For those of us who are overweight and targeting associated health/medical conditions, or who are trying not to develop those conditions, only doing strength/resistance training may not be the best choice for our specific targets.
Since about December, I have changed my exercise and added between 2 to 2.5 hours/wk of dancercise (aerobics) to my previous circuit style resistance/strength training. Prior to this change/addition, I was doing about 3 to 3.5 hours of resistance/wk. I am now doing 1-1.5 resistance + 2-2.5 aerobics/wk and seeing and feeling good results. Although I am delighted (per the study below) to know that I am likely dropping non-observable , visceral belly fat, I am also happy to be seeing observable changes in external belly fat. I also feel that this change has enabled me to much more easily maintain my goal weight of 9+ years, as well as drop about 8 additional lbs and comfortably maintain that, while continuing to build strength and muscle.
I think the implications of this study as very important for those who have significant weight to lose, may be insulin resistant, and are beginning to put in place an exercise routine that will become habitual, as well as those with fatty liver, those who are trying to avoid fatty liver, and others as indicated in the study.
If you are overweight and/or have the conditions addressed in this study, or are trying to avoid them, do you think your current exercise regimen is on target? What is your exercise regimen and how do you think it is working for you?
"Aerobic exercise is your best bet when it comes to losing that dreaded belly fat, a new study finds. When Duke University Medical Center researchers conducted a head-to-head comparison of aerobic exercise, resistance training, and a combination of the two, they found aerobic exercise to be the most efficient and most effective way to lose the belly fat that's most damaging to your health."
"The Duke study showed aerobic training significantly reduced visceral fat and liver fat, the culprit in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Aerobic exercise also did a better job than resistance training at improving fasting insulin resistance, and reducing liver enzymes and fasting triglyceride levels. All are known risk factors for diabetes and heart disease."
"Resistance training achieved no significant reductions in visceral fat, liver fat, liver enzyme levels or improvements in insulin resistance. The combination of aerobic with resistance training achieved results similar to aerobic training alone."
"Resistance training is great for improving strength and increasing lean body mass," says Slentz. "But if you are overweight, which two thirds of the population is, and you want to lose belly fat, aerobic exercise is the better choice because it burns more calories." Aerobic training burned 67% more calories in the study when compared to resistance training."
"The eight-month study followed 196 overweight, sedentary adults (ages 18-70) who were randomized to one of three groups: aerobic training; resistance training or a combination of the two. The aerobic group performed exercises equivalent to 12 miles of jogging per week at 80% maximum heart rate. The resistance group performed three sets of 8 -- 12 repetitions three times per week. All programs were closely supervised and monitored to ensure maximum effort in participation."
asked byAtkins_witha_loincloth (5477)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on August 27, 2011
at 02:27 PM
My goal is to feel really good so I do what my body craves on any given day. I'm 146 pounds and 5'6 and definitely would like to slim down but my even bigger priority is to feel good. At first, when I started following my "feel good" protocol, I generally wanted to walk and so I did. Now I actually enjoy running for the majority (or at least 1/2) of my 3-4 mile route and it isn't forced at all; I stop and walk when I get tired. There are also some big rocks on the trail and on some days, I squat, deadlift or throw them just for fun. I'll also do some (assisted) pull-ups, pushups or other bodyweight exercises as desired which might be one or two sets multiple times a day (some days). Other days of the week I want to do some volleyball or soccer, which has the added benefit of social stimulation. Other days I really REALLY don't want to do anything and I am SURE to just rest. I've forced exercise before, and I am rarely better for it.
I am starting to "feel" lighter, stronger and more energetic and crave physical activity more and more which is what I actually wanted from the weight loss anyway. And I think I AM losing a little bit of weight, but it's hard to pin if it's from the exercise or the diet specifically.
on August 27, 2011
at 02:15 PM
This study was set up to validate the conventional wisdom regarding exercise and diet.
The researcher said, "What really counts is how much exercise you do, how many miles you walk and how many calories you burn," he says. "If you choose to work at a lower aerobic intensity, it will simply take longer to burn the same amount of unhealthy fat." And, in a study comparing the short-term fat loss effects of three sets of 8-12 reps (across how many exercises/body parts? It doesn't say) 3 times a week vs the equivalent of jogging 12 miles per week you can pretty much guarantee that your results will match your expectations.
What they don't discuss is how moderate aerobic exercise (80% max heart rate in this study) increases appetite and ultimately leads to increased food consumption post exercise. They also failed to discuss any dietary interventions, which, again, support the notion of "calorie in calorie out". Given that the participants were "overweight, sedentary" individuals, it is rather likely that they were consuming a SAD diet full of processed foods, high in carbohydrates and fat, and low in nutrient density.
I disagree with the conclusions of this study because it is not simply about "how much exercise you do" just as it is not simply about how many calories you consume. Quality is just as important (if not more so) than quantity.
Would these same participants, if eating a quality diet, require high-volume moderate aerobic exercise to achieve a reduction in visceral body fat? Probably not, but the conventional wisdom is all about maintaining the status quo.
on August 27, 2011
at 12:58 PM
To say that Aerobic exercise beats resistance training of overweight sedentary adults preforming 8-12 reps of bicep curls and shoulder shrugs and half squats in a smith machine would most likely be right.
How about they do a study that compares real training, like running for your life, or lifting something really heavy once in a while to aerobic training.
Plain and simple for overweight people I would say that aerobic work outs probably had a lot more intensity and moving weight (themselves) up and down was more likely more weight then their resistance training routine.
So I get aerobic training beats long distance running, and crappy weight training. But they didn't compare to the training that matters, sprinting for short distance and lifting heavy stuff in functional movements.
Then again we can always find studies that "prove" just about everything. All depends on funding.
on August 27, 2011
at 01:49 PM
I accomplish what I want simply by walking, which I consider to be non-aerobic at my 3.5 mph pace. My goal is transportation and weight maintenance, but it has also improved CV indicators blood pressure and HDL. In order for this to be effective you need time - think in terms of hours a day, not hours a week. I only get a net burn of 70 calories per mile.
I realize it's paleo-chic to imagine Grok raining boulders on mastodons and running from sabertooth cats. But the reality was mundane scrounging for something edible to keep from starving. No motor vehicles. Paleo is all about walking for everything.