Post: #1

Cool

Quote:The first thing many people do when they enter the gym at the beginning of January is to step on a treadmill, but the new study - published in the journal Obesity - suggests we may want to veer toward the weights section.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that a wide variety of factors play a role in obesity, making it a "complex health issue to address."

Though body weight is a result of our genes, metabolism, environment and culture, obesity results from an energy imbalance - simply put: when we eat too many calories and do not get enough exercise.

However, because behavior and environment play a large role in obesity, the CDC note that these are the greatest areas for prevention and treatment.

Lead study author Rania Mekary, from the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), speaks of the importance of a healthy waist circumference:

"Because aging is associated with sarcopenia, the loss of skeletal muscle mass, relying on body weight alone is insufficient for the study of healthy aging. Measuring waist circumferences is a better indicator of healthy body composition among older adults."

Because previous studies have focused on a specific population of participants - for example, those who were overweight or had type 2 diabetes - for short amounts of time, yielding mixed results, Mekary and her team used a large sample of healthy men, with a wide range of body mass indexes (BMIs), over a long period of time.

Weight training combined with aerobic exercise still the best option
The researchers studied 10,500 healthy men in the US over the age of 40 who were part of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study between 1996-2008. After assessing the physical activity, waist circumference and body weight of the men, the team analyzed changes in their activity levels during the 12-year period and how this affected their waistlines.

Results showed that the men who increased the amount of time they spent lifting weights by 20 minutes a day had a smaller waistline gain during the time period (-0.67 cm), compared with those who increased their aerobic exercise by 20 minutes a day (-0.33 cm) or who increased yard work or stair climbing (-0.16 cm).

Not surprisingly, those who increased sedentary behaviors including watching TV gained more weight in their belly area.

The researchers also note that, although aerobic exercise by itself was linked to less weight gain compared with weight training, waist circumference is a better sign of health in older people. Additionally, combining weight training and aerobic activity yielded the best results, they say.

"Engaging in resistance training or, ideally, combining it with aerobic exercise could help older adults lessen abdominal fat while increasing or preserving muscle mass," adds Mekary.

Post: #2

The Book 'Body By Science' is a good read and has taken this stance years ago.

Post: #3

OP, do us a favour and post a bit more analysis with your news posts will ya?

Post: #4

The only quibbles I have with this study and the idea in general is that ideally one should do both and it is possible to perform much larger periods of cardio training than weight training each day.

I've never known a boxer, guys who probably put themselves through more brutal weight loss regimes than any others, to lose weight by spending three hours per day in the weights room, for instance.

When I have been on a weight loss programme I have always done an hour of weights each day plus another couple of hours cardio (an hour running and an hour walking at different points in the day). There is nothing like a long jog to demolish a thousand calories in an hour!

I feel it's similar to asking "which is healthier to eat, vegetables or protein?" When the answer is both.

Post: #5

Arnie's biography has an opening chapter about his mentor who was doing the exact same thing, lifting weights to get leaner.

Not terribly surprised that medical science (as usual) shows up late to the party.

Post: #6

(01-04-2015 06:04 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The only quibbles I have with this study and the idea in general is that ideally one should do both and it is possible to perform much larger periods of cardio training than weight training each day.

I've never known a boxer, guys who probably put themselves through more brutal weight loss regimes than any others, to lose weight by spending three hours per day in the weights room, for instance.

When I have been on a weight loss programme I have always done an hour of weights each day plus another couple of hours cardio (an hour running and an hour walking at different points in the day). There is nothing like a long jog to demolish a thousand calories in an hour!

I feel it's similar to asking "which is healthier to eat, vegetables or protein?" When the answer is both.

Yes, I agree with this. It's easy to put in 30 mins of incline walking after lifting.

Also, a lot of people are going to read this and think that their half assed lifting with too many breaks is as calorie burning as cardio. I would speculate most people spend significantly less lifting than cardio, me in the past included, simply by taking too long breaks, too light isolation reps and not enough intensity.

Post: #7

(01-04-2015 05:35 AM)roberto Wrote:  OP, do us a favour and post a bit more analysis with your news posts will ya?

There you go dude, two additional posts, no problem.
But unfortunately they don't elaborate emphatically why they came out with this particular research.

An unexpected exercise that targets belly fat

Quote:By now, you probably know that upping the ante on your core workouts won't unveil the six-pack abs of your dreams. It's simply impossible to reduce body fat in a specific area, no matter how much you curse that little something extra around your middle.

However, that doesn't mean that strength training doesn't have a benefit for that belly.
In a new study, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers found that men who completed 20 minutes of weight training a day saw a smaller increase in belly fat than men who spent the same amount of time sweating it out in a cardio workout."Engaging in resistance training or, ideally, combining it with aerobic exercise could help older adults lessen abdominal fat while increasing or preserving muscle mass," lead author Rania Mekary, a HSPH nutrition researcher said in a statement.

More than 10,000 men were included in Mekary's study, published online in the journal Obesity, which analyzed data from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study over a 12-year period. Over those 12 years, the men who added more weight training to their days saw their waistlines grow less than those who added more aerobic exercise or more low-intensity activity, like yard work, to their days.

Surprising absolutely no one, men who added more sedentary time to their days over the 12 years saw bigger gains to their midsections.Excess belly fat is of particular concern because of its link to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and other conditions.

But, because it's impossible to target fat around the midsection, the best solution is to reduce body fat overall. When it comes to whether weight training or aerobic exercise is the best way to do that, it seems that a combination of both is the winning way to lose."This study underscores the importance of weight training in reducing abdominal obesity, especially among the elderly," Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH and senior author of the study, said in a statement. "To maintain a healthy weight and waistline, it is critical to incorporate weight training with aerobic exercise ".

Study shows that 20 minutes of weight training per day decreases age related abdominal fat

Quote:With the New Year coming, many people are setting goals to eliminate unwanted body fat.  Many health studies label belly fat as the primary concern.  It takes a lot of hard work, consistency, and commitment to eliminate stubborn belly fat, but a new study shows it may also take pumping iron.

Healthy men who performed 20 minutes of daily weight training had less of an increase in age-related belly fat compared with men who spent those 20 minutes performing aerobic activities.  The new study completed by Harvard School of Public Health reports that combining weight training and aerobic activity produced optimal results when eliminating abdominal fat.  Aerobic activity alone is associated with less weight gain compared with weight training. 

“Because aging is associated with sarcopenia, the loss of skeletal muscle mass, relying on body weight alone is insufficient for healthy aging,” said lead author Rania Mekary, a researcher in Harvard School of Public Health. “Measuring waist circumference is a better indicator of healthy body composition among older adults. Engaging in resistance training or, ideally, combining it with aerobic exercise could help older adults lessen abdominal fat while increasing or preserving muscle mass.”

This new long-term study was done with a large sample of healthy men ranging in BMI.  Researchers studied the physical activity, waist circumference, and body weight of 10,500 healthy men in the U.S age forty and over.  The study named, Health Professionals Follow-up Study, took place from 1996-2008.  The analysis included a comparison in changes in activity levels over twelve years to assess which activities had the most impact on men’s waistlines.

Weight training is more effective than vigorous aerobic exercise, yard work, or stair climbing.

Those who increased weight training by 20 minutes per day had less gain in their waistline when compared to men who spent the same amount of time completing vigorous aerobic exercise, yard work, or stair climbing.  Those who increase their TV watching skills also increased their waistline.

“This study underscores the importance of weight training in reducing abdominal obesity, especially among the elderly,” said Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH and senior author of the study. “To maintain a healthy weight and waistline, it is critical to incorporate weight training with aerobic exercise.”

Post: #8

I'm no expert. The purpose of my cardio is to increase the blood flow to my muscles (heart pump blood faster, veins open up). Muscles need that blood flow when lifting. Cardio helps me get there. I know for a fact that I can lift better or even do a plank longer after a little cardio than without it.

To me, cardio for cutting calories and losing overall excess weight is completely different and serves a different goal. I guess excess cardio can even tear down muscle.

It's a bit silly to have the cardio versus lifting argument without putting it into context with your exercise goals. The argument also confuses the shit out of beginners that read everything off the internet.

Post: #9

Fat is fat. Lifting heavy burns more energy. It's not rocket science. You also want to tighten up you stomach muscles while your at it. Lay on your back with your hands behind your head and hold your feet 6" off the ground. Do some knee to chest bicycle exercises til you drop and you'll see your stomach flatten.

Post: #10

(01-05-2015 08:31 AM)Cobra Wrote:  I'm no expert. The purpose of my cardio is to increase the blood flow to my muscles (heart pump blood faster, veins open up). Muscles need that blood flow when lifting. Cardio helps me get there. I know for a fact that I can lift better or even do a plank longer after a little cardio than without it.

To me, cardio for cutting calories and losing overall excess weight is completely different and serves a different goal. I guess excess cardio can even tear down muscle.

It's a bit silly to have the cardio versus lifting argument without putting it into context with your exercise goals. The argument also confuses the shit out of beginners that read everything off the internet.

I agree, I need some cardiovascular health to be able to lift weights well. I'm not talking marathon training, but being able to run a mile without wanting to puke.

If after two reps I feel like I'm going to have a heart attack my form goes in the toilet and I get sloppy.

Post: #11

The way I understand it, when you lift your body has to do a lot of work around the clock for 48 hours repairing the damage. All that work burns calories. So with lifting your not just burning calories while lifting, your burning while you sleep that night etc.

When you lift, you create micro tears in your muscle fibers, which takes your body 2 days or so to repair. Of course your body needs to burn energy while it's working around the clock repairing those tears.

Post: #12

Dupe

Post: #13

(01-04-2015 06:04 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The only quibbles I have with this study and the idea in general is that ideally one should do both and it is possible to perform much larger periods of cardio training than weight training each day.

I've never known a boxer, guys who probably put themselves through more brutal weight loss regimes than any others, to lose weight by spending three hours per day in the weights room, for instance.

When I have been on a weight loss programme I have always done an hour of weights each day plus another couple of hours cardio (an hour running and an hour walking at different points in the day). There is nothing like a long jog to demolish a thousand calories in an hour!

I feel it's similar to asking "which is healthier to eat, vegetables or protein?" When the answer is both.

I also wish they clarified what type of cardio they are referring to. Maybe I just missed it, but I couldn't find it on a brief read through.

20 minutes of walking or fucking around on the elliptical isn't gonna do much. 20 extra minutes of boxing or muay thai padwork, high intensity pick-up team sports, or a running workout with sprints or high intensity is a whole different deal.

Post: #14

The only thing that matters for weight loss is a calorie deficit. It has been proven over and over that it doesn't matter how you get a calorie deficit, only that you do.

Post: #15

(01-06-2015 02:17 AM)Switch Wrote:  The only thing that matters for weight loss is a calorie deficit. It has been proven over and over that it doesn't matter how you get a calorie deficit, only that you do.

This is only true when talking about aerobic exercise.

I have been an athlete and into fitness my entire life. I have been going to the gym 5 times a week since I was a kid, it really is my lifestyle. I have been under 10% body fat for as long as I can remember.

These last several months I wanted to go on a cutting phase and get my body fat down to 6-7%.
At first I would hit the weights hard, then run for about 30 mins at a good pace. However, I wasnt losing body fat, or barely at all. I was eating right, but something was off. I started reading about sprinters and their body type. They are jacked and cut. Yet they dont do long distance running, how can this be?

To make a long story short, sprinting(which is anaerobic), has a totally different affect on your body than aerobic running in regards to calorie deficit.

I started to experiment. Instead of 30 minute runs after wieghts, I would hit the beach and do 10x 100M sprints with around 2 minute rests between, 4 times a week . This workout took max 20 mins, was more intense forsure, but more enjoyable in my opinion. You really feel like you are contracting your entire body for 15 second intervals.

The results were amazing. My abs were popping out a hell out lot more in way shorter amount of time, my arms were getting more cut. Not to mention sprinting builds your hamstrings, quads, and calfs up, while long distance running is stress on your knee and hip joints ( my dad got double knee replacements because of long distance running).

Sprinting shocks the body and puts it into what is today called the after-burn effect. What this means essentially is your body continues to burn calories after the workout is over. How much is burned is up for debate, but the you cannot debate the results.

So to anyone whos looking to burn fat quickly and effectively, hit your weights then hit anaerobic activity for 15-20 mins. You will be impressed with the results.

** This is all the more effective if you have some sort of meal plan and you arent sprinting it all the way to McDicks for a quarter pounder with bacon.

Post: #16

^^

I'm glad that worked for you Sandman.

The only thing is, not many people are trying to do what you did, which is go from very lean to ultra, my-body-really-doesnt-want-to-do-this lean.

You must remember that most people see 10% as their goal, not their starting point.

Post: #17

Also, sprints make a massive dent into your recovery abilities, so if your focus is on strength, or on a sport, then they might not be the best idea. Long duration low intensity steady state on the other hand, is very easy on recovery (and I would say even helps recovery), results in a load of cardio vascular benefits that sprints don't, can be complementary to a strength program, and is pretty effective for weight management (ask any fighter). I understand that people don't like doing it (I don't either), but anyone that's ever been consistent with an LISS regime will be unable to deny the benefits.

Additionally, bodybuilders are probably the leanest people in the world, and they rely almost exclusively on LISS for body-fat reduction (granted the drugs play a part too).

Post: #18

(01-07-2015 06:31 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  ^^

I'm glad that worked for you Sandman.

The only thing is, not many people are trying to do what you did, which is go from very lean to ultra, my-body-really-doesnt-want-to-do-this lean.

You must remember that most people see 10% as their goal, not their starting point.

Very true. Maybe I wasnt clear enough but I recommend this for practically anyone who is physically able to run and wants to lose weight quickly.

It doesnt even need to be actual running sprints.

Stationary bike sprints are also great. Example: Steady pace on stationary bike for 2 minutes, then for 30 seconds increase the intensity and go all out for 30 seconds. Repeat this pattern x10. This is called HIIT training. High Intensity Interval Training.

I recommend this to anyone, try it, experiment with it and gauge your results.

Also when losing body fat, its super important to hit abs 4-5 times a week. Muscle is much denser than fat, and takes the place of fat much quick when already being built at the same time as fat is being burned.

Post: #19

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)sandman972 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 02:17 AM)Switch Wrote:  The only thing that matters for weight loss is a calorie deficit. It has been proven over and over that it doesn't matter how you get a calorie deficit, only that you do.

This is only true when talking about aerobic exercise.

I have been an athlete and into fitness my entire life. I have been going to the gym 5 times a week since I was a kid, it really is my lifestyle. I have been under 10% body fat for as long as I can remember.

These last several months I wanted to go on a cutting phase and get my body fat down to 6-7%.
At first I would hit the weights hard, then run for about 30 mins at a good pace. However, I wasnt losing body fat, or barely at all. I was eating right, but something was off. I started reading about sprinters and their body type. They are jacked and cut. Yet they dont do long distance running, how can this be?

To make a long story short, sprinting(which is anaerobic), has a totally different affect on your body than aerobic running in regards to calorie deficit.

I started to experiment. Instead of 30 minute runs after wieghts, I would hit the beach and do 10x 100M sprints with around 2 minute rests between, 4 times a week . This workout took max 20 mins, was more intense forsure, but more enjoyable in my opinion. You really feel like you are contracting your entire body for 15 second intervals.

The results were amazing. My abs were popping out a hell out lot more in way shorter amount of time, my arms were getting more cut. Not to mention sprinting builds your hamstrings, quads, and calfs up, while long distance running is stress on your knee and hip joints ( my dad got double knee replacements because of long distance running).

Sprinting shocks the body and puts it into what is today called the after-burn effect. What this means essentially is your body continues to burn calories after the workout is over. How much is burned is up for debate, but the you cannot debate the results.

So to anyone whos looking to burn fat quickly and effectively, hit your weights then hit anaerobic activity for 15-20 mins. You will be impressed with the results.

** This is all the more effective if you have some sort of meal plan and you arent sprinting it all the way to McDicks for a quarter pounder with bacon.

But you are still creating a calorie deficit, so what Switch says is true.

Anaerobic may be better than aerobic for burning calories, but either way you are still burning calories to put yourself into a calorie deficit, which is what matters for losing weight.

Post: #20

(01-05-2015 09:15 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Fat is fat. Lifting heavy burns more energy. It's not rocket science. You also want to tighten up you stomach muscles while your at it. Lay on your back with your hands behind your head and hold your feet 6" off the ground. Do some knee to chest bicycle exercises til you drop and you'll see your stomach flatten.

Any type of exercise — whether aerobic or resistance training, moderate or high intensity — delivers health benefits and helps to burn off excess calories. So be physically active!

Post: #21

(01-08-2015 03:13 AM)sandman972 Wrote:  Also when losing body fat, its super important to hit abs 4-5 times a week. Muscle is much denser than fat, and takes the place of fat much quick when already being built at the same time as fat is being burned.

huh? Agree with you about the awesomeness of HIIT, but this smacks of some hard bro science...

Muscles dont really "take the place of fat", as far as I know. If you can elaborate though, please do!

I'd say abs 2x a week is more than enough if you feel you need to train them. Personally, just getting lean gives me a good midsection without direct ab work.

Post: #22

(02-20-2015 11:02 AM)RichieP Wrote:  I'd say abs 2x a week is more than enough

I think it just depends...

Some guys have thick abs muscles. Other guys have underdeveloped ab muscles.

Some guy are good at engaging there abs during all other exercises. Other guys are not so good at engaging their core.

So, if you have underdeveloped abs, you may want to train them more then twice a week.

I recommend doing a wide variety of core exercises. The benefit of variety is that you work the abs from different angles and start to develop upper abs, lower abs, the muscles on your sides (serratus muscles), lower back, hips, etc. Working all these different areas with a variety of exercises will improve your core strength and of course, your abs and core.

Some guys have abs but no serratus muscles, hips, or lower back.

Its better to have everything -- Abs, sides, hips, low back, and ass.

Why work just one? Work them all. They all benefit each other.

---

Here is a related post with exercise examples:

/thread-43972-...#pid950006

Post: #23

The best type of cardio is not eating. You'd be really surprised by how few calories you actuslly burn on a treadmill. Those numbers you see on the machine are sometimes off by up to 40%.

Post: #24

I lost a lot of weight once and people asked me, what did you do?? What did you eat?

No one liked it when I said the answer was "don't eat"

Post: #25

I don't really believe that training any muscle >2x a week is optimal for hypertrophy, but YMMV. "More is better" is not usually the case.

Strength is a different matter though.

(02-20-2015 12:41 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 11:02 AM)RichieP Wrote:  I'd say abs 2x a week is more than enough

I think it just depends...

Some guys have thick abs muscles. Other guys have underdeveloped ab muscles.

Some guy are good at engaging there abs during all other exercises. Other guys are not so good at engaging their core.

So, if you have underdeveloped abs, you may want to train them more then twice a week.