Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cardio vs Strength - Burning Fat

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cardio vs Strength - Burning Fat

    I just sat in on a Q&S session at my gym, and one of the things mentioned was that while cardio burns fat, it mostly burns the fat that is under your skin, while weight training burns the fat deeper inside. This is the first I've heard if this!

    Any can back that up?
    How/why?

  • #2
    Whaaaa...? I don't get it. That sounds nutty.

    Sent via A-10 Warthog

    Comment


    • #3
      Rubbish. They both burn fat. Do one or the other or do both doesn't really matter. HIT is more efficient and cardio is more specific.

      Fat loss is over 80% diet related anyway.
      One time http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum.php

      Comment


      • #4
        And now you have conclusively determined that these people are not entitled to opinions on the matter.
        The Champagne of Beards

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh it was among other stuff I could conclusively say was BS, but this took me off guard as I'd never heard of anything about it.

          I sat in on this session for my own education of commonly accepted "fact", and I'm both bemused and sad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't know if exercise can do it, but there is some empircal evidence suggesting that diet can selectively effect where fat is lost:

            "The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women" (Volek et. al, 2004).

            Note that this was a true experiment (that is, diet was manipulated, not just measured) using a cross-over design (each participant experienced both diets, in randomized order, of course). The study compared isocaloric (and at a deficit) diets, one being a very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and the other low-fat. They measured weight loss, body composition, and trunk fat mass (via DEXA), among other things. Participants were overweight/obese men and women (mean BMI for the mean was about 34 and the women 29).

            Thus while arguments of "focused" fat loss should be considered with skepticism, there is decent evidence that we should wait to see the data instead of dismissing the claims out-of-hand.

            Of course the odds of the folks at a globo-box making their claims based on systematic empiricism.....
            SW = 290, PSW = 290, CW = 228, UGW = 194
            6'2" Male, Early 50's

            Comment


            • #7
              ^ I was going to point that out dnj. Good link. Never heard of this in regards to exercise selecting one or the other though.

              I'll run some google for subcutaneous fat, viceral fat, and exercise though for fun.

              Google scholar says:

              Preferential loss of visceral fat following aerobic exercise, measured by magnetic resonance imaging - Springer

              Doesn't compare one sort of exercise to another, and actually reports reduction in viceral fat (opposite of what globo gym stated) for moderate aerobic activity.

              International Journal of Obesity - Factors associated with percent change in visceral versus subcutaneous abdominal fat during weight loss: findings from a systematic review

              This one is really interesting because it seems to state that moderate fat loss begins with VAT, but as you progress this is attenuated and you loose more from subcutaneous. This explains why you see almost immediate metabolic improvement when you start proper diet and exercise, but you may not see much a change in the mirror for some time. But that info is in the abstract. There is lots of data to pore over here since its a systematic review.

              Here is where I got these links:

              subcutaneous fat viceral fat and exercise choice - Google Scholar

              some more to explore there if anyone wants to dive in.
              Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-29-2013, 06:56 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Allenete View Post
                I just sat in on a Q&S session at my gym, and one of the things mentioned was that while cardio burns fat, it mostly burns the fat that is under your skin, while weight training burns the fat deeper inside. This is the first I've heard if this!

                Any can back that up?
                How/why?
                Well, if Q&S stands for Question and Shit, then yeah, you got the right answer.
                Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                Comment


                • #9
                  BBC News - Gene mutation means paracyclist has no fat under skin

                  I don't recall where I first came across this, but there's a cyclist (paralympics) who has a gene mutation and can't store subcutaneous fat. Tangential, but interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There may be correlations, though. Aren't there correlations between visceral fat and metabolic syndrome, which is linked to a bad diet? People who are following the recommendations for diet may also be following the recommendations for exercise, which is mostly just running/cardio. People who lift and sprint have an entirely different way of fueling their bodies, which is less likely to cause visceral fat.

                    I might be making this up, so I'd love to hear someone shoot this down.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well I posted a systematic review above. There is this that follows up on that review:

                      Increasing Weight Loss Attenuates the Preferential Loss of Visceral versus Subcutaneous Fat

                      " Their principle finding was that there is no compelling evidence that any investigated weight loss intervention selectively targets the reduction of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) to a greater extent than another. This conclusion agrees with our recent findings that changes of VAT mass are allometrically related to changes of total body fat mass (FM) during weight loss, regardless of gender or weight loss intervention (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control2). However, we were intrigued by another of their conclusions: that VAT was lost preferentially versus subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) with modest weight loss, but the effect was attenuated with greater weight loss (The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.Destroy user interface control1). Here we show that our simple allometric model also predicts this result."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jfreaksho View Post
                        There may be correlations, though. Aren't there correlations between visceral fat and metabolic syndrome, which is linked to a bad diet? People who are following the recommendations for diet may also be following the recommendations for exercise, which is mostly just running/cardio. People who lift and sprint have an entirely different way of fueling their bodies, which is less likely to cause visceral fat.

                        I might be making this up, so I'd love to hear someone shoot this down.
                        Yes, you are entirely right....there is indeed a CORRELATION between metabolic syndrome and visceral fat. In the same sense that there is correlation between shark attacks and being in the ocean rather than on your couch.

                        Metabolic syndrome is caused by prolonged high insulin. What this means is that you are in storage mode a lot of the time...targeting either of the drivers of fat gain, that being insulin-resistance and calorie surplus, WITH EXERCISE of any kind, is wishful thinking. Whatever small differences between modalities will be dwarfed by diet measures.

                        Cardio vs strength for fat loss?
                        Neither.
                        "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I disagree. Exercise is vital in the overall plan. Not saying you can take up jogging and resistance training without addressing diet and see a full recovery, but exercise even if it is in the temporary sense does improve insulin sensitivity. As does many other lifestyle factors that should be addressed of course.

                          Does Exercise Without Weight Loss Improve Insulin Sensitivity?

                          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10683091

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Back to the original question. I think we have heard enough to suggest that the answer given was in total ignorance or to promote a type of exercise that will provide the trainer a living.

                            That being said, if you eat an Oriole Cookie it would take 54 trips up a flight of stairs to burn the calories off. That doesn't sound too efficient therefore it is better not to eat the cookie.

                            What exercise does is set and reset metabolic switches to steer the calories to the muscle cells or to fat cells for storage. Walking and high intensity such as resistance training and sprints send the calories to the muscles. "Cardio" sends the calories to fat storage, and the jogger draws from there.

                            Simplified, but accurate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Walking and high intensity such as resistance training and sprints send the calories to the muscles. "Cardio" sends the calories to fat storage, and the jogger draws from there.
                              Could you clarify what you mean here?

                              By "sends the calories" do you mean "draws the calories(energy)" from these sources?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X