Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Cardio vs Strength - Burning Fat page

  1. #1
    Allenete's Avatar
    Allenete is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    334

    Cardio vs Strength - Burning Fat

    Primal Fuel
    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. #2
    Mr. Anthony's Avatar
    Mr. Anthony is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,909
    Whaaaa...? I don't get it. That sounds nutty.

    Sent via A-10 Warthog

  3. #3
    Ollie's Avatar
    Ollie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    247
    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.

  4. #4
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,434
    And now you have conclusively determined that these people are not entitled to opinions on the matter.

  5. #5
    Allenete's Avatar
    Allenete is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    334
    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.

  6. #6
    dnj1965's Avatar
    dnj1965 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    15
    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 = 280, PSW = 224, CW = 204, UGW = 194
    6'2" Male, Late 40's

  7. #7
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,183
    ^ 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 at 06:56 AM.

  8. #8
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,741
    Quote 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", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 195 x 3

  9. #9
    sjmc's Avatar
    sjmc is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    592
    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.

  10. #10
    jfreaksho's Avatar
    jfreaksho is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,961
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •