E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIf you want to burn fat, it's better to hit the treadmill than the weight room, a new study suggests.
The results show aerobic workouts are better than resistance training for reducing fat mass.
And a workout that combines the two activities — lifting weights in addition to running — is no better at burning fat than running alone, the researchers said. The findings contradict the idea that resistance training can help with weight and fat loss by improving metabolism, the researchers said.
But the findings don't mean that resistance training is not useful. The study found that resistance training was better at increasing lean body mass than aerobic training alone. And for older adults who are experiencing muscle loss, resistance training is beneficial, the researchers said.
But for young, healthy adults who want to lose weight, aerobic training may be the way to go.
"Balancing time commitments against health benefits, our study suggests that aerobic exercise is the best option for reducing fat mass and body mass," said study researcher Cris Slentz, an exercise physiologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "It's not that resistance training isn't good for you; it's just not very good at burning fat," Slentz said.
The study involved 234 overweight and obese adults who did not have diabetes, and did not exercise regularly before the study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three workouts: a resistance training workout (consisting of three days of weight lifting per week); an aerobic workout (running 12 miles a week); or a combination workout (three days of weight lifting plus 12 miles of running a week). The workout regimens lasted eight months.
The aerobic training group and the combination group lost more weight and fat mass than the resistance-training group.
Despite requiring double the exercise time, the combination workout did not reduce body mass and fat mass beyond what was seen in the aerobic training group, the researchers said.
While some studies suggest resistance training can improve metabolic rate, and thus allow people to burn more calories, the new results do not suggest this. Regardless of participants' metabolic rate, they did not lose more weight or fat mass with resistance training.
"No one type of exercise will be best for every health benefit," said study researcher Leslie Willis, an exercise physiologist at Duke. "However, it might be time to reconsider the conventional wisdom that resistance training alone can induce changes in body mass or fat mass due to an increase in metabolism, as our study found no change."
Although a focus on weight loss is understandable, "when considering the big picture, I like to encourage individuals to pursue a complete exercise program — including both aerobic exercise and resistance training," said Barbara Bushman, a professor at Missouri State University's Department of Kinesiology who was not involved in the study. "If time is limited and it comes down to one or the other, this study, as well as [statements from the American College of Sports Medicine] would seem to be in agreement that aerobic exercise along with dietary restriction are of the greatest benefit," Bushman said.
The study is published in the Dec. 15 issue of the Journal of Applied Physiology.
Pass it on: Aerobic workouts are best for fat loss.
- Lose Weight Smartly: 7 Little-Known Tricks that Shave Pounds
- 11 Surprising Things That Can Make Us Gain Weight
- 7 Common Exercise Errors — And How to Fix Them
Related stories:
- This is your brain on exercise
- Daily activity lowers Alzheimer's risk
- Why working out makes you live longer
Leave a Comment:
Not sure I buy this study. From my own experience, the people you see in the free weight room at the gym are in the best possible shape. The folks who spend all their time on the treadmills, bikes, etc., are less so. And, especially with women, the difference between women who do REAL weight training, and not FAUX weight training (meaning the women who use the very light weights so they don't "bulk up, and wind up not really doing "resistance" training at all) is striking. There are many overweight, out of shape folks in my spin classes. Wonder if the folks doing the weight training part of the study were actually using appropriate resistance.
I do not agree with your assessment at all for the following reasons:
First, the average person in the gym is a lot younger than the average person in the study: a 58-year-old woman. These women have already had middle age change their bodies (if you are not middle-aged, your metabolism slows down), and they did not adjust, so they are now much more overweight, and out of shape.
Second, younger people simply care more about their appearance, and have more time to devote to it. They are often single, and have limited responsibilities (read as, no kids). They have more time to be active in their lives, whereas the women in the study were probably virtually all mothers, and spent time taking care of their kids instead of just doing fun activities that would keep them more slim.
Lastly, people at the gym often go there several times a week, and have a mindset that is devoted to their body, and looking good for the opposite sex. In other words, they are more naturally going to hang out there than mothers, and do not need to lose weight in the first place.
Men don't do complete fitness routines, either. The dimensions of fitness are: (1) body composition, (2) cardiovascular endurance, (3) muscular strength, (4) muscular endurance, and (5) flexibility. Men focus on numbers 1 and 3 and usually aren't very good at either. Most men lift weights to change the composition of the upper part of their bodies and ignore their legs. They pay no attention to their heart muscle. I don't understand how someone thinks that doing an activity that rises their blood pressure for 30 seconds is a good heart exercise or cardio. True, most women ignore their their bones, strength... because of an unfounded fear that they will bulk up. They don't have enough natural hormone o do so.
Studies are unscientific. They are simply polls, nothing more.
I find this article very difficult to believe. Having been involved in fat burning fitness for years, I have seen what definitely works, and weights work very well, are more fun than running, and when used in moderation are easier to continue to do. The results I have myself overseen, and witnessed countless times is what I will continue to believe in. I say again, studies are only polls. There is no real science behind them.
This article does not address intake - soley the mode of caloric output. The aerobic vs anaerobic exercise antinomy is an old and tired one. One can burn more fat while doing aerobic activity, but because muscle mass increases metabolism, over a 24 hour period (as opposed to say the hour of aerobic exercise) one who has more muscle mass is using more calories and getting leaner (all other variables the same). And, the better cardiovascular fitness attained, the more efficient one is with his calories (not a good thing if you are trying to get rid of them). A simple look at your average endurance athlete vs your average sprinter demonstrates which caloric output method tends to keep one leaner.
As mentioned in the article, the study is flawed. They equal 12 miles a week with 3 days of weights. You have to talk about hours, how many hours of running versus how many hours of weights.
How many calories are burned by running 30 minutes versus how many calories are burned by lifting weights for 30 minutes. Otherwise the study is just comparing apples with oranges.
I lost around 40 pounds doing resistance training. Just another bs study that was probably paid for with a government grant.
Kevin C-752389
What makes you think this study was done with women? I have the study in front of me: it was "...119 sedentary, overweight or obese adults." The age range: 18-70. The other statements you made I agree with, but this was not a female-only, middle-age study at all.
Brenda-251440
You say:
Other than being incredibly sexist and grossly overgeneralized, your comments bear no weight on the study. This study was highly flawed, as our group will reveal in an op ed, but one of the things the researchers did correctly was monitor the completion of virtually every workout. Flexibility, for example, was not included as a criteria because that's not the way you study acute effects of X on Y. You narrow the parameters. They were looking at aerobic vs anaerobic exercise pertaining to fat burning; nothing more (although more data was collected.)
As for the study, since this won't be in the media:
The researchers put the RT only group (resistance training) on a maximum of 3 total sets per workout, 3 days per week. Now, we've actually done studies showing that ONE set of a compound movement (squat, any press, etc.) will build strength and even some size, but it won't do diddly for fat loss unless you stretch the study over a considerable range of time. The more lean muscle your body carries, the more calories you burn at rest. So, over time, those added muscle pounds would create a greater caloric burn, all things being equal.
But three TOTAL sets in a workout? That would take at MOST 10 minutes, if that. The numerous studies showing RT to be fabulous at fat-burning have participants training about 30-45 minutes, with most sets carried to momentary muscular failure. Our research looks at rest intervals of only 15-30 seconds between sets. Using this protocol, training can be kept to under 15 minutes, and fat burning is 'more' effective than cardiovascular work done at this study's protocol (60-85% VO2m).
Finally, diet creates fat loss, not exercise. Of course, exercise burns calories, but it's moot compared to what modest caloric and carbohydrate restriction can do. I get ready for bodybuilding shows in FAR less time than 18 weeks, the duration of this study, and believe me—RT and diet kicks the sh*t out of cardio. For my last peak a few weeks back, I did a total of 60 minutes of cardio per WEEK. That's it. I was right around 4% body fat. (In case someone mentions "genetics", I was obese 12 years ago.)
Sprinters and bodybuilders/fitness pros have, by far, the leanest and most muscular bodies on the planet. Most bodybuilders these days shy away from excess cardio. Sprinters have it nailed: burst for a few seconds, then walk for a few minutes. There's even a study that shows TWO MINUTES of sprinting (30 seconds on, 4 minutes walking) burned more fat and created greater VO2 changes than 30 minutes of steady-state cardio (i.e. running.)
In summation: this study is total bullsh*t.
Thankks for "the rest of the story" on this. That's the first thought that came into my mind: What protocol were they using as "lifting weights 3 times per week". You answered that and it is not the resistance training protocol one should use. The real conclusion is not "aerobic exercise better than weights for fat loss" but at best it is "aerobic training better that doing 3 sets 3x per week (I assume with very light weights?) for weight loss". This is an example of a poor study being presented in the media in an even poorer way.
FormerNFO-2872071
No problem. Unless you're in the medical field or in med school, it's tough to get these studies (unless you pay for them one at a time... ; )
What's funny is that I see 'casual runners' all the time in our facilities. They are almost always over-fat (not overweight, although sometimes they're downright obese, but rather carrying a lot of subQ fat.) Sprinters are, dare I say, NEVER over-fat, and that includes people who sprint and rest (not athletes.)
But yeah, if I wanted to create a study to show the 'ineffectiveness' of something, I'd be sure and use protocols well under the common sense threshold. "3 sets a workout"... yeah boy, that's BOUND to burn fat. ; )
The GOOD thing about this study is that it confirmed the other HIT and HIIT studies; that you can build muscle on very limited amounts of sets, which is true. But you can't generate enough caloric burn to do much without volume or far greater intensity.
MJLawe; I think you are confusing cause and effect. The overweight people are one the treadmills because they are trying to lose that weight; the skinny people are on the weights, because they want to muscle up.
Two different types of exercise for two different effects, as the article states. Both are needed for full effect. I'm not sure which is worse - folks thinking they can get both effects from one type of exercise, or the scientists (?) that got paid to do the study. Where can I get some money to do one of these studies taking something that should be pretty obvious and getting paid to prove it? Sounds a lot easier than my job.
As personal trainer, who just wrote a fitness article about this subject, I totally buy this. People often will fight with me on this. I find that people who do usually don't like cardio because it is so difficult. Resistance training is interval training. That is part of the reason why less fat is burned. It is not in the same category as having to move your entire body weight down the street for 40 continuous minutes. Obviously, cardio, especially jogging, biking, swimming involves the use of more muscle mas at simultaneously. However, in my article I do point out that resistance training that involves muscular endurance or high intensity interval training type circuits, such as tabata, can be as effective at burning fat as cardio, because they really are cardio routines. They get the heart rate up and keep it up. The aerobic pathway begins to kick in when an exercise is done for at least two minutes. I don't get out of my oxygen deficit until about the 13 minute mark.
I am not disagreeing with you on this but feel that the title is misleading. Resistance training can be aerobic as well, just like you said. Anything that increases heart rate and caloric burn is going to result in weight loss to a degree. However, what the article blatantly ignores is efficiency. If I run 3 miles a day 6 days a week (at the same pace) my first month of weight loss will not be the same as my second month of weight loss due to my efficiency increasing, my resting heart rate decreasing, etc. etc.
Initially running might result in the most weight loss, to a point. Long term this is just unrealistic. Eventually everyone should reach the point (if consistent) where weight loss is no longer a goal.
If I do pushups and pullups for an hour keeping my heart rate at around 160-170 it's going to burn very close to the same number of calories as running for that long keeping the same heart rate.
I often feel my heart beating fast after some resistance exercises like push-ups, but for the most part resistance exercise does not get my metabolism going.
I am not a nutritionist, doctor, physician, etc., but I was under the impression that resistance exercise helps build muscle and then muscle uses more energy for your bodily functions. In that way, building muscle through resistance exercise can ultimately help burn fat, but the act of resistance exercise does not burn fat.
Waynero-That's exactly what I thought. Years ago I learned that the heart uses fatty acids as its primary source of energy production during heavy exercise as opposed to glucose and its stored derivatives used by skeletal muscle. So it makes complete sense that over a relativley short period aerobic excercise should burn more fat.
As personal trainer, who just wrote a fitness article about this subject, I totally buy this. People often will fight with me on this. I find that people who do usually don't like cardio because it is so difficult. Resistance training is interval training. That is part of the reason why less fat is burned. It is not in the same category as having to move your entire body weight down the street for 30 continuous minutes. Obviously, cardio, especially jogging, biking, swimming involves the use of more muscle mas simultaneously. However, in my article I do point out that resistance training that involves muscular endurance (high reps) or high intensity interval training type circuits, such as tabata, can be as effective at burning fat as cardio, because they really are cardio routines. They get the heart rate up and keep it up. The aerobic pathway only begins to kick in when an exercise is done for at least two minutes. I don't get out of my oxygen deficit until about the 13 minute mark. Remember: the heart is a muscle, too. The only one you cannot live without. Cardio is resistance training for the heart.
Brenda-251440
Well, I'm glad you mention Tabata, although that protocol was never tested via RT, only cardio, but the point is valid: intensity.
That said, as a doctor in sports med (nutrition) and exercise physiology, I find it hard to believe you "buy this", given your personal training background.
Cardio isn't 'difficult'... it's tedious. Breathing squats are difficult! Makes me wonder how you're training your clients... but yeah, they do bitch about cardio... until you put them on a density training protocol, or breathing squats, or deads... then cardio seems like a walk in the park.
You say:
This is just patently false, Brenda, unless you're referring to, say, a chest press vs swimming. Again, doing supersets, or even just squats done 'correctly', recruits FAR, FAR more muscle fibers from every variance than any of these other exercises. It's why bodybuilders don't look like swimmers, and vice versa.
Here's a study I highly suggest you read. Steele has done more research into this topic, sans a few others I know, than anyone out there:
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/JEPonlineJUNE2012_Steele.pdf
Hope this helps.
Didn't they just publish a study a few weeks ago saying that weight training was better at burning fat than aerobic exercises? There seem to be conflicting studies and I don't know what to believe now.
I think I read about it just last week.
If you want to find out about a study, you need to find out who is funding it. As the old saying goes: You can make numbers say anything you want them to. The bottom line is do what you feel like doing. If you enjoy lifting weights, lift weights. If you enjoy running, then run. If you enjoy both, then mix it up. Unless you are training for the Olympics, the idea is to do what you enjoy so that you'll keep up with it. Nothing worse than waking up in the morning and saying to yourself "ugh, I've got to hit the gym today." Personally, I've always hated the "stretching" before the run. It was drilled into us and I pretty much ignored it. After I got out of school, my idea of stretching before a run was to bend down for a few seconds keeping my knees straight and leaning against the wall keeping one leg back for a few seconds. Years later they came out with studies that stretching doesn't do any good before a run and may be harmful. Not sure it's harmful, but I'm sure it doesn't help, unless you are a sprinter or do the hurdles.
In all likelihood, this study was done for somebody like Nike and the study last week was done for Gold's Gym.
No. What they said was that strength training provides a greater after burn, because metabolism stays high for a while afterward. Muscles have to rebuild. That rebuilding temporarily raises metabolism.
Sharon, I read the same article and I too read that it said, skip the treadmill and hit the weights.
@withrunner - What I have found is that a little bit of dynamic stretching (arm swings, high kicks, high knees, mountain climbers) prior to any workout and then long static stretching after a workout gives me the most benefit.
I think they say that static stretching (hold each for 8-10 seconds) before any type of workout decreases power by up to 20%.
witchrunner
Very good advice, although in this case it's clean. I know the team, and there were no competing interests. It's just a very, very poor study on the RT side of the fence (see my earlier posts.)
Studies have shown that for seniors like myself (over 60), weight training is better because we are losing considerable muscle mass compared to younger people.
Not only that but many of us have degenerative discs, arthritis and other effects of aging that prohibit running. I was a distance runner when I was young but have not been physically able to run for over 20 years because of knees that were destroyed from running 7-10 miles a day for many years.
Run, Logan, Run! Any runner will tell you that this is true. I had a buddy who ran 15 miles each day and who could not get drunk, no matter how much he drank. He burned the calories before they could make him feel woozy. He donated blood one day and then he drank liquor right after his donation. Finally, he felt drunk.
Gee! running burns more fat then lifting....and the sky is blue, and water is wet. did we really need a study to tell us this. As pretend personal trainer, who has never written a fitness article about this subject, I agree. Sarcasm, gotta luv it!
All I want to know is, if the US government gave some kind of grant to pay for this useless study, which from the comments everyone knows the answer to. I'm not sure if my government did pay for this, but unfortunately believe they did with some sort of grant. What a waste of money. imho.
Tomorrow they will publish a study that claims the exact opposite.
Studies are too easily biased. When embarking on one, you can "prove" just about anything you want.
Not exactly leftovers, it totally depends on how the study is conducted. That is why all studies that are taken seriously are subject to peer review and must be published in a scientific journal.
But I would have thought this obvious, and I'm pretty sure it is to the serious workout junkies. Cardio burns fat. Weight training increases muscle mass. A responsible combination is the best way to get in 'optimal' shape, but for people that consider themselves overweight they will see a much bigger, faster benefit by focusing on cardio.
Which ones can we believe ?
Started running when I was 60; now I try to do 12-15 miles per week. It's hard and sometimes I have to take it easy when my body is telling me something ( back pain, knee twinges etc) but the key is to listen to your body and DON'T work through the pain! After taking up running my body changed noticeably. A change I did not see doing heavy resistance training alone (eg 15# bicep curls 80# squats). It gets pretty hot and humid here during the summer so after mid to late June I stop running and go back to weights and the elliptical at the air-conditioned gym (can't stand the treadmill!) I can hardly wait for the weather o cool off so I can start running again!
The study published 2 weeks ago stated that even moderate exertion from running actually damaged your heart muscle by putting micro tears in it. Go figure.
LOL at some of the comments here. So much ignorance. If you want to lose weight, burn more than you consume. It's infinitely simple. There are loads of skinny fat, and obese people slogging away for hours on treadmills. They don't get anywhere because they don't know BMR, RMR, TDEE or Macros stand for, let alone what their individual numbers are. People don't weigh their portions, don't count condiments, don't keep food diaries, yet wonder why they're still fat.
You can lose weight running if you moderate food intake, but sorry, at my size, (6'0" 196lbs 12% bf) I can jog at 6mph for an hour and burn 600 calories. I can eat triple that in 1 meal if I'm not careful. IMO running is horrid exercise. As some other posters mentioned, it's bad on joints, and, for those who are extreme runners, there are no longevity benefits (posted 2 weeks ago here on nbcnews.com).
With cell phone apps like myfitnesspal and others, it's super easy to track intake when used with a scale. I eat almost anything I want and my TDEE is 2900, macros are 55%/35%/20%. When I'm gaining weight (I lift weights) I bump calories 300 over TDEE, cutting, I drop them 500. At a 500 calorie deficit I will lose 1lb a week (3500 calories = 1lb of fat).
In close, running and lifting are useless without a sensible diet.
ps. for the poster who says guys neglect legs, lol, some do, but none that I know do.
Your macros total 110%...? Also, Carbs/Protein/Fats respectively, I presume?
God, I hope you're not doing 55% carbs, unless you're genetically gifted or running marathons. Perhaps 5% of the population need that much glucose. Most people find it far easier to burn fat on lower carbs and elevated protein due to the increased thermogenic reactions protein foods offer. Personally as a competitive bodybuilder, I keep my carbs to 10-15% of my diet prior to a show, and no more than 20% off-season for HEALTH reasons. Carbs have a pathetic influence (as in really crappy) on small particle LDL, and they're the most inflammatory foods on earth.
RUNNING is the single best fat burner there is, period. I have run, lifted, trained most of my life, but when I could no longer run, my weight started going up. swimming is the next best thing, or biking, but you have to do it often and you have to go for at least 1 hour if not more. Walking takes too long and does not do it effectively. But, running ruins your knees and joints and that is a fact. you can run maybe 20years a little more if your lucky, but then your harming your joints. And the older you get the more and more you have to do it. 30 min. is not enough.
Running uses primarily your leg muscles which are the largest muscles, and no doubt burn a lot of calories when worked. The big difference is that in weight lifting, those muscles can be put under much greater strain than running can do, also when those muscles begin to burn from the lactic acids, you can use other muscles to keep burning fat, and also get overall better tone in the process.
This article should really be about the cool-down. That's when most cardiac conditions set in, and seems to me to be a much more important subject.
Note to all: wear your flip-flops in the locker room, and when in saunas and steam rooms, please for the love of Pete, don't set you bare disgusting ass where other people have to sit. Use proper hygiene when in locker-rooms.
When you run, all of your weight is on your legs. Further, you run in about a 1/4 squat. Do that for 30 minutes. The lift weights the next day. Wear a heart rate monitor both times. See the difference.
Anyone who has ever looked at a Calories Burned chart could have told you this....
Bodyweight training is the best of both worlds and conditioning your tendons lets you do more strenuous weight training and running
Why is this new news? Everybody knows that aerobic exercise burns calories and fat. Weightlifting builds muscle. I am a runner . I have been running consistently for the better part of 30 years. I also pump iron. This new study, in my opinion just verifies what we already know.
It's true~ Running burns more fat than weights. I'm 5'7 and 130 lbs and stayed this weight for years. And im cute and when I look at fat overweight lazy people, it makes me feel sorry for them.
And no, I'm not trolling I'm just stating the truth and oh yeah, stay away from junk food, no sugar, no caffeine, no smoking, no pills, no alcohol, and barely any meat and it works...TRUST me~ Happy Holidays! ^_^
There is an obvious flaw in the study. It did not follow participants over time to see which group maintained the weight loss. There are two stages to weight loss, loss and maintenance. It is important to ascertain if resistance training helps over years even though it may not accelerate weight loss over the short term.
Losing weight is easy. Maintaining the change over time is difficult.
Studies find that this is old information that people have known for years. Studies find money being wasted on usless studies.
If you want muscle definition do both weights and cardio. If you want bulging muscles just lift heavy weights. If you want to be lean then just do cardio. Every personal trainer in the developed world knows this.
What!?! I find this hard to believe. I find it hard to believe that they needed a study to know this!
Cardio (bike is even better than running, without the joint pounding) sheds fat like gangbusters. Weight training benefits fat loss in one way, the more muscle mass you have the more fat your body burns to feed that muscle mass, no matter if you are doing high intensity cardio or sitting on your butt. The down side of this is extra muscle mass also burns the calories you consume to the point of making you hungry sooner and more often. People who consider themselves overweight will have far more effective weight loss by doing cardio.
Losing it and keeping it off has far more to do with personal motivation and consistency than weight training vs. cardio.
Please save your responses if you disagree by relating an anecdotal experience you or your friend or your cousin or whoever experienced. There are always many, many variables that can interfere with success when getting in shape. The average person who considers themselves overweight and has appropriate health clearance from their doctor should ride a bike or spin at the gym and if they keep it up they will lose weight.
Guaranteed. Every. Single. Person.
As mentioned in the article, the study is flawed. They equal 12 miles a week with 3 days of weights. You have to talk about hours, how many hours of running versus how many hours of weights.
How many calories are burned by running 30 minutes versus how many calories are burned by lifting weights for 30 minutes. Otherwise the study is just comparing apples with oranges.
They did a total of three sets... as in a TOTAL of three sets per workout, and that was after week 5. I do three sets in about 7-9 minutes. It's an absurd study.
Who cares what this study says? Do what works for your body, your lifestyle and your schedule. Effort is what it takes and what you want out of your effort should guide you to which activity(ies) you put it into to.
Did somebody actually get paid to do a study on this? How about running while lifting weights vs. running while eating fried Chicken?