ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:27 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:51 pm 
Offline
n00b
n00b

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:11 pm
Posts: 3
So, I'm a little confused after reading this blog entry, with the following information:

'Researchers (Melanson et al., 2013) looked into resistance exercise as a mode of exercise. They compared a calorie-matched bout of 70% VO2 max cycling with a circuit of weight training at 70% 1RM.

During the weight training, subjects utilised more carbohydrate than the cycling subjects, which we may expect to see. However, over the whole 24-hour period there was no difference in either carbohydrate/fat utilization between the 2 exercise groups or indeed overall energy expenditure.

So yes, you can manipulate the type of fuel utilized during an exercise bout, which is good to know when designing a training program. However if you fail to take into account and manipulate your 24-hour energy intake it won’t matter one bit.

The type of exercise in a single bout makes no difference to overall energy expenditure in a day. Next time you get told about a certain type of exercise “boosting” your metabolism for the rest of day, just nudge the person in the direction of this blog and just crack on with your chosen exercise.

Hopefully I’ve managed to show you that the type of fuel you burn during exercise doesn’t matter, because without paying any attention to your diet the following scenarios could develop

You could regularly burn fat as a fuel during exercise, yet eat more food than your body needs and put on body fat.
You could regularly burn carbohydrate during exercise, yet eat less food than your body needs and lose body fat.

The results of your fat loss are NOT confined to the exercise bout, but rather your whole 24-hour day, which just happens to usually include an exercise bout.'

I understand what he is getting at in terms of eating food, that wasn't really what I was getting at. But this article kind of goes against everything I understand! From what I understood, weight training proves to be much more effective in weight loss than cardio thanks to the huge increase in metabolism afterwards, yet this blog argues against that, with that particlar paper. It does also say:

'It is key to remember however that the benefits of weight training and the subsequent increase in muscle size, can lead to an increase in overall energy expenditure as you have more mass.'

Which kind of confirms the metabolism increase I mentioned, but I guess a bit more in the long term. But still has me confused. The paper is recent, from 2013. What I found on the exrx site under the 'weight loss' page:

'Intense exercise (eg. weight training, HIIT, plyometrics, sprints) can increase metabolic rate for hours after the vigorous workout.'

As well as under the page of HIIT vs ET the study looked at was from 1994 and concluded that for 'every calorie expended during HIIT, there was a nine fold loss of subcutaneous body fat, as compared to the ET group.'

I just want a couple things cleared up from my confusion!

So, the 1994 study was over a 20 week period, I can't find the duration of the 2013 study, so perhaps that was why this conclusion was different? Because the metabolism would have increased due to the increase in musculature?

Also, to be calorie matched in the 2013 study, weight training would have, I'm assuming, been a shorter bout of training as it burns more calories during exercise (not necessarily fat, calories in total) than the comparative cycling bout at 70% VO2 max? In effect, making it a more efficient workout in terms of time, is that a correct assumption?

That was what I could conclude! If someone could clear that up or whatnot?! That would be much appreciated!

-Ben


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3991
This is about HIIT rather than regular cardio. It's a very different thing. I didn't follow a lot of that. Asking specific questions would be easier.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:35 pm 
Offline
n00b
n00b

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:11 pm
Posts: 3
Sorry, reading back I don't know what I was asking either.

I think I answered my own question within that question... basically, should I favour HIIT over regular cardio and/or weights in a circuit format to lose body fat?

I also just wanted someone's opinion on his sentence in his blog: 'Next time you get told about a certain type of exercise “boosting” your metabolism for the rest of day, just nudge the person in the direction of this blog and just crack on with your chosen exercise.'

As I would disagree to his statement, and suggest that certain types of exercise do boost metabolism, and suggest HIIT training as an example. Would I be correct in saying that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:51 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6593
Location: Halifax, NS
bennyg wrote:
...'Next time you get told about a certain type of exercise “boosting” your metabolism for the rest of day, just nudge the person in the direction of this blog and just crack on with your chosen exercise.'...


I haven't read the original blog so I can't say what the author meant but there is value in doing exercise that you like vice exercise you don't like, simply because it's exercise you will stick with. However, you should be prioritizing exercises that protect or build muscle, or create adaptations that you want. You can simply cut calories to lose fat. Using exercise to create a calorie deficit is rather useless.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:11 am 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:14 am
Posts: 166
@ bennyg

Did you look at (some of) the articles on "bodyrecomposition.com"? Could be interesting for this topic. For example:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/exercise-and-weightfat-loss-part-1.html

The main question is: How important is training for fat loss after all? It seems that the positive effects of training in this context aren`t really the amount of additionally burned calories...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:51 pm 
Offline
n00b
n00b

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:11 pm
Posts: 3
Ok thanks for those links, I haven't had much of a chance to read through them yet but I will when I get the chance!

I will bear those points in mind too!

Although I've just checked the links... They seem to be unavailable!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:21 am 
Offline
Apprentice
Apprentice

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:14 am
Posts: 166
It seems he made some changes on his website...

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/exercise-and-weightfat-loss-part-1/

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review-effects-of-exercise-intensity-and-duration-on-the-excess-post-exercise-oxygen-consumption/

I Hope it works now...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group