The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
"Exercise not likely to rev up your metabolism Studies bust myth that working out gives you a fat-burning boost"
In a nutshell, finally some part of the popular media is reporting that its not *that* you exercise that dictates your weight/fatloss - its how much you eat.
But we already knew that, smart ones that we are.
__________________ "My yoga class had me trembling and sweating and I feel MUCH better." - Fang
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenacious Training and Tweaking (the A lotta Alitteration thread)
“Building muscle is very difficult for most individuals because it requires heavy weight workouts and a higher intake of calories,” he says. “Average fitness enthusiasts [who are working out to gain muscle] will only add four to five pounds of lean mass,” he says, and burn an additional 28 to 50 calories a day. (Men tend to gain more muscle, on average, than women.)
This is a great point from the article. There are many great reasons to add muscle to a physique, but if one is looking to rev up their metabolism, then they're doing it for the wrong reason.
In a nutshell, finally some part of the popular media is reporting that its not *that* you exercise that dictates your weight/fatloss - its how much you eat.
But we already knew that, smart ones that we are.
Just in reading this board, Leigh's books (of course), and various other things on the Internet in the past three months, I already feel like I know more about how to go about fat loss than 80% of people out there. I keep having to bite my tongue to avoid preaching to people who aren't ready to hear it.
Weight loss is all about the deficit. Fat loss isn't as simple. It comes from a deficit, but the ratio of fat vs lean is driven mostly be your exercise (type, intensity, etc.)
Having lost 35lbs without lifting a weight and the next 35lbs while lifting weights, I can tell you that exercise does help to direct your losses more toward fat vs just weight.
If you're trying to lose 20lbs of fat, lifting weights can help you get to that 20lbs a month or more faster, given the exact same deficit.
Just in reading this board, Leigh's books (of course), and various other things on the Internet in the past three months, I already feel like I know more about how to go about fat loss than 80% of people out there. I keep having to bite my tongue to avoid preaching to people who aren't ready to hear it.
I think 80% is being generous to the general population.
If you're trying to lose 20lbs of fat, lifting weights can help you get to that 20lbs a month or more faster, given the exact same deficit.
I think that is a bit out there statement. I get what you are saying and I agree that training is important to health and body composition, and yes they do connect, but general activity without weights can preserve muscle just fine when mixed with the right diet. To say that you can get their faster with weights as a definite I don't agree with. It can help,and it can hinder too.
Fat loss, not just weight loss is about a deficit too. You don't have to Deadlift 3xbw to maintain muscle mass. I could show you some moms who do nothing but walk and take care of their daily chores/kids that leaned out quite nicely, not "skinny fat," with diet only methods.
I mean, when you consider that in the beginning it was all about dieting, and then people were maybe losing but looking just as crappy afterward, no health benefit, etc; or were not losing cuz they had to eat so damn little… telling people to exercise seems logical. It's easier to lose if you can burn more and therefore up your cals to "not constantly starving" levels. But then, as everything does, shit gets twisted, and you have all sorts of programs that are "just exercise, don't diet" and you get plenty of people who can't lose because they just eat more (even if it's not a matter of feeling like they deserve it, just the nature of homeostasis).
Lots of good messages get corrupted as they are output to the masses… even without trying.
It seems like the strongest possible argument that the study might be making is that NOTHING really revs the metabolism. Not weights. Not high intensity training... nothing. Calories burned during the exercise are the only calories that are burned.
I definitely have experienced something very similar to roland. just my N=1, but for me, the magic combination has been weights plus shorter, more intense running. but I still agree that fat loss happens in the kitchen. if the food isn't on track, the exercise isn't gonna fix it. I have obese marathon and triathlon pictures to prove it!!!
but once I fixed my diet, I experienced what roland did.
I think that is a bit out there statement. I get what you are saying and I agree that training is important to health and body composition, and yes they do connect, but general activity without weights can preserve muscle just fine when mixed with the right diet. To say that you can get their faster with weights as a definite I don't agree with. It can help,and it can hinder too.
Fat loss, not just weight loss is about a deficit too. You don't have to Deadlift 3xbw to maintain muscle mass. I could show you some moms who do nothing but walk and take care of their daily chores/kids that leaned out quite nicely, not "skinny fat," with diet only methods.
I'm sure you're right, and I only had me to study.
I'm not saying that you have to lift heavy, but I did think that without weights you would lose a much bigger percentage of lean mass.
In my own case, I can't really know, either. I did the first half one way and the second the other way. I've just assumed that I would have lost less lean, and my fat a little faster if I'd started with weights rather than my many miles of jogging and cycling. I was totally new to weights, and started with Testosterone Advantage Plan when I started lifting (it includes more protein and weight training).
Leigh, what about differences between guys and girls, newbies and more advanced trainees? Guys add muscle faster, so do they retain easier, too?
It seems like the strongest possible argument that the study might be making is that NOTHING really revs the metabolism. Not weights. Not high intensity training... nothing. Calories burned during the exercise are the only calories that are burned.
Which is a little depressing.
Exercise effects the thermic effect of food for hours after the exercise. You burn off more of what you eat.
Exercise habits cause behavioral changes in other areas, too. I was a slug most of my life, but I'm told that now I'm antsy and always on the go. I don't like to just sit around anymore. Not sitting around is usually NEPA is usually burning more calories.
Exercise tends to make us less likely to overindulge (we just did all that work, and don't want to waste it). You're increasing your odds of keeping on track.
Getting and staying healthy makes you more able to get up and move around more.
Mentally, following a good plan in one are (exercise OR nutrition) encourages you to follow a good plan in the other (nutrition OR exercise). Don't discount the mental side of things. It's the vicious circle effect, but just non-vicious. More snuggly...
So, while our actual, physical metabolism might be changed only slightly, all of these effects are still working for us. These effects and others are probably what sparked the idea that metabolism was being elevated. People exercises and lost more weight than the exercise alone could account for? Must be metabolism. Guess not, but just because the reasons are wrong doesn't mean the result isn't still here.
Also, in Leigh's metabolism book, she talks about "metabolism" (obviously) and how it's a collection of physical, hormonal, mental, situational, etc things. Our metabolisms aren't as simple as physical science would have us believe.
Exercise effects the thermic effect of food for hours after the exercise. You burn off more of what you eat....
From a variety of sources I have read, this is true but is reported to only be about 7-8 kcal/hr. I suppose that means 20-30 kcal per day at most and is negligible compared the the calories burned by the exercise that causes the increase. However, I suppose it adds up over time just like doing small things that increase NEAT.
I'm so gonna bookmark that for my non-Leighite friends to slowly convert them to Leighism!
__________________
Vegetarian, consumer of large quantities of Quark cheese
Working my way from 76.4 to 58 kg (168 - 127.6 lbs)
Lifting a bit, schedule varies. Barbell weight: 22kg/48.4#
So, while our actual, physical metabolism might be changed only slightly, all of these effects are still working for us. These effects and others are probably what sparked the idea that metabolism was being elevated. People exercises and lost more weight than the exercise alone could account for? Must be metabolism. Guess not, but just because the reasons are wrong doesn't mean the result isn't still here.
Also, in Leigh's metabolism book, she talks about "metabolism" (obviously) and how it's a collection of physical, hormonal, mental, situational, etc things. Our metabolisms aren't as simple as physical science would have us believe.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. The power of your state of mind may not be measurable in a lab but it's everything when it comes to weight loss, fitness, healthy living in general.
__________________
To be calm is the highest achievement of the self.
From a variety of sources I have read, this is true but is reported to only be about 7-8 kcal/hr. I suppose that means 20-30 kcal per day at most and is negligible compared the the calories burned by the exercise that causes the increase. However, I suppose it adds up over time just like doing small things that increase NEAT.
7-8 cal/hour is almost 10% more than my sedentary burn of 60-80 cal; that's significant.... I noticed yesterday that GWF had me at 2200 cal when I did my double exercise from 5pm - 8pm. I thought usually I burn 2300-2400 cal when I have a double exercise day. I wonder if I do the exercises earlier in the day, would it really contribute to burning more per hour.. I'll have to watch that .... because I think I had noticed it, like, "wow, how did I get up to 2300kcal so fast today!"
> be about 7-8 kcal/hr. I suppose that means 20-30 kcal per day at most
7x20= 140 cal
8 x 30 = 240 cal
How do you come up with "only 20-30kcal more per day?
7-8 cal/hour is almost 10% more than my sedentary burn of 60-80 cal; that's significant.... I noticed yesterday that GWF had me at 2200 cal when I did my double exercise from 5pm - 8pm. I thought usually I burn 2300-2400 cal when I have a double exercise day. I wonder if I do the exercises earlier in the day, would it really contribute to burning more per hour.. I'll have to watch that .... because I think I had noticed it, like, "wow, how did I get up to 2300kcal so fast today!"
> be about 7-8 kcal/hr. I suppose that means 20-30 kcal per day at most
7x20= 140 cal
8 x 30 = 240 cal
How do you come up with "only 20-30kcal more per day?
The question is for how many hours do you have the additional burn?
The additional burn is known as EPOC. Very intense weight training is much better for this afterburn effect than aerobic training which is what the article discussed.
Leigh has said, repeatedly, that EPOC is a much smaller effect than many would suggest. Yes, it's bigger after intense intervals (HIIT), but it's still a minimal effect.
EasyRhino, where in the article does it say anything about test subjects who lifted weights? Some guy makes an off-hand comment but has no test results that back it up. They only tested cyclists and cardio.
This was discussed on another thread recently. It seems the MSNBC report it being taken out of context. They are talking about steady-state cardio not being the metabolism booster. The only people who believed it did are the health-clubbers with their magazines on the treadmill. There are those that have been talking about raising metabolism through certain types of weight lifting programs, like Alwyn Cosgrove and Chad Waterbury, saying that steady-state cardio does not raise metabolism, and is one of the least efficient methodsof fat loss when compared to several other methods. This article does not refute what they are saying.
"I just read that MSNBC article about the metabolism effects..... interestingly it appears the researchers just studied people doing steady-state cardio (cycling with low intensity and higher intensity), which both NROL and C.Waterbury both say is not going to raise EPOC or metabolism. So in that regard the research supports what they are saying. Then one of the interviewees mentions weightlifting and myths surrounding it, although they apparently didn't even test subjects who weight lifted, right? So the research doesn't investigate full-body workouts with weights, and it doesn't research the HIT interval type training as far as EPOC or metabolism is concerned. So in other words, it doesn't really say anything new that disputes NROL? Did I overlook something? NROL mentions research that does specifically discuss metabolism after intense full-body lifting and interval training. Check out the 4th paragraph under "experts flabbergasted"...It says they "would not rule out the longer term fat 'afterburn' with different kinds of exercising or harder types." Nothing new here. Articles like these, where people just take away sound-bytes without reading them closely, really tick me off. There are probably a lot of obese couch potatoes who will now think that exercising isn't all it is supposed to be, and they'll instead keep buying these Grapefruit potions and ab-twister machines and "Rapid loss" videos."
Some of the posts above seem to be confusing some different issues. the 7-8kcal/hr, was that in reference to the thermic effect of food? I believe I read an article that talked about 15cal/hr from the afterburn effect of intense weight training, which can last as long as 38 hours. Can someone set these two things straight?
EasyRhino, where in the article does it say anything about test subjects who lifted weights? Some guy makes an off-hand comment but has no test results that back it up. They only tested cyclists and cardio.
You're right the news blurb only said "low or high intensity" cycling, and didn't dwell on what high intensity meant.
Some of the posts above seem to be confusing some different issues. the 7-8kcal/hr, was that in reference to the thermic effect of food? I believe I read an article that talked about 15cal/hr from the afterburn effect of intense weight training, which can last as long as 38 hours. Can someone set these two things straight?
I'd sure like to understand this much better as well.
Maybe someone could give me the readers digest version of this article?
"Its not about exercise" finally hits popular media...
Linear Mode
