Studies on exercise - Steady state vs HIIT vs Weight Lifting...

[KajunDC]

Most of us know that that weightlifting provides the greatest benefit for overall fat loss, followed by HIIT cardio, with steady state cardio coming in a distant third. Some people still have skepticism despite the assurance that these studies have been done. So, here are a few of the actual studies done showing the results of fat loss with these exercise techniques.

Van Dale D, Saris WH, Schoffelen PF, Ten Hoor F.
Does Exercise give an additional effect in Weight Reduction Regimens?
Int J Obes. 1987;11(4):367-75.
This study compared two groups over 8 weeks, a diet alone group and a diet plus steady state aerobic exercise group. Exercise program consisted of 4 hours per week.
Results: Aerobic exercise program contributed no significant difference in fat loss over diet alone.

Utter AC, Nieman DC, Shannonhouse EM, Butterworth DE, Neiman CN
Influence of diet and/or exercise on body composition and cardio respiratory fitness in obese women.
Int J Sports Nutr. 1998 Sep; 8(3):213-22
The researchers found that the addition of 45 minutes of aerobic exercise at 78% Max Heart Rate 5 days a week for 12 weeks (4 weeks longer than the first study) had NO EFFECT over dieting alone.

Redman et al
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Jan 2
Effect of calorie restriction with or without exercise on body composition and fat distribution.
This is a six month study. Aerobic training group performed 50 minutes of aerobics 5 times a week for the entire duration. Results: No additional effects of aerobic exercise on weight or body fat levels.

What about comparing weight training vs steady state aerobics?
Geliebter A, Maher MM, Gerace L, Gutin B, Heymsfield SB, Hashim SA.
Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Sep; 66(3):557-63.
Conclusion: in an isoenergetic comparison (meaning they burned the same amount of calories during the workouts), the strength training group lost significantly more fat than the aerobic training group. Additionally, the aerobic group lost significantly more lean body mass (muscle) than the strength training group.

Is there such a thing as EPOC? EPOC stands for Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consumption and is defined scientifically as the recovery of metabolic rate back to pre-exercise levels. In other words, the time post exercise that your body continues burning excess calories over resting metabolic rates.
Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM.
Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise consumption: implications for body mass management.
Eur J Appl Physiol 2002 Mar; 86(5):411-7
This group looked at the effects of circuit training on EPOC. Routine was 3 exercises – Bench Press, Power Clean and the Squat – performed with 10RM loads as a circuit. Circuit was performed 4 times and took 31 minutes.
Results – EPOC was elevated 38 hours post workout (possibly longer as this was when researchers stopped measuring).

I could go on and on with these studies as I have literally dozens of studies which all give the same head-to-head results:
resistance training beats aerobic training, HIIT defeats endurance aka steady state aerobics, and reduced carb diets defeats high carb diets.

The reasearch has been done and published in the most respected, peer-reviewed journals in the world.

[workingmomof3]

Thank you - just had a conversation yesterday - and woman insisted on cardio...

[electricfeel]

i'm curious - HIIT depletes glycogen, right? what if you're lowcarbing and have very low glycogen stores? what 'source of fuel' does the body pick then?

[Sybilizedliving]

Thanks for posting this! I'll be keeping as a reference!

[ChrisNTX]

Thanks for posting the references. I actually went and read the abstracts and it really didn't verify or confirm anything.

Here is the abstract for your first one.

1: Int J Obes. 1987;11(4):367-75.Links
Does exercise give an additional effect in weight reduction regimens?Van Dale D, Saris WH, Schoffelen PF, Ten Hoor F.
University of Limburg, Department of Human Biology, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

The effects of dieting and exercise on RMR, body composition and maximal aerobic power were studied in 12 obese women. The subjects were paired on the basis of their body mass index and divided into a diet (D) and a diet + exercise group (DE). The treatment consisted of a 5-week period with a low-energy formula diet of 2.9 MJ and an 8-week period with a mixed diet of 1.7 MJ supplemented with 1.8 MJ normal foodstuffs. DE trained 4 h per week at 50-60 per cent of their maximal aerobic power with aerobics and fitness exercises. Body composition was determined by hydrostatic weighing and RMR was measured from 03.00 to 06.00 hours in a respiration chamber. Maximal aerobic power was measured on a continuously braked ergometer. The measurements were done at week 0, after 4 weeks (week 5), and after 12 weeks (week 13). Weight loss after 4 weeks was 8.2 kg (DE) and 7.9 kg (D) and after 12 weeks 13.2 kg (DE) and 12.2 kg (D). There were no significant differences between the groups. Fat loss was also not statistically different between DE (6.7 and 10.9 kg) and D (6.0 and 9.4 kg). Both groups showed a significant decrease in RMR per kilogram FFM after 12 weeks (DE: 18.2 per cent and D: 26.5 per cent). There was also a significant decrease in RMR for D (19.9 per cent) after 4 weeks but not for DE (12.2 per cent).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

PMID: 3667068 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The diet plus exercise group trained at a relatively low percentage of maximal power(50-60%), not to mention the fact that they were obese. Training at a relatively low level intensity will not contribute to a significant caloric expenditure. What if they trained at 70-80% of maximal aerobic power? Assuming caloric intake was strictly controlled and monitored would not the results be different had the exercise group trained more intensely?

[ChrisNTX]

Another reference you cited was...

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 3 865-872
Copyright © 2007 by The Endocrine Society

Effect of Calorie Restriction with or without Exercise on Body Composition and Fat Distribution
Leanne M. Redman, Leonie K. Heilbronn, Corby K. Martin, Anthony Alfonso, Steven R. Smith, Eric Ravussin for the Pennington CALERIE Team1
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Eric Ravussin, 6400 Perkins Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808. E-mail: ravusse@pbrc.edu.

Context: There is debate over the independent and combined effects of dieting and increased physical activity on improving metabolic risk factors (body composition and fat distribution).

Objective: The objective of the study was to conduct a randomized, controlled trial (CALERIE) to test the effect of a 25% energy deficit by diet alone or diet plus exercise for 6 months on body composition and fat distribution.

Design: This was a randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: The study was conducted at an institutional research center.

Participants: Thirty-five of 36 overweight but otherwise healthy participants (16 males, 19 females) completed the study.

Intervention: Participants were randomized to either control (healthy weight maintenance diet, n = 11), caloric restriction (CR; 25% reduction in energy intake, n = 12), or caloric restriction plus exercise (CR+EX; 12.5% reduction in energy intake + 12.5% increase in exercise energy expenditure, n = 12) for 6 months.

Main Outcome Measures: Changes in body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and changes in abdominal fat distribution by multislice computed tomography were measured.

Results: The calculated energy deficit across the intervention was not different between CR and CR+EX. Participants lost approximately 10% of body weight (CR: – 8.3 ± 0.8, CR+EX: – 8.1 ± 0.8 kg, P = 1.00), approximately 24% of fat mass (CR: – 5.8 ± 0.6, CR+EX: – 6.4 ± 0.6 kg, P = 0.99), and 27% of abdominal visceral fat (CR: 0.9 ± 0.2, CR+EX: 0.8 ± 0.2 kg, P = 1.00). Both whole-body and abdominal fat distribution were not altered by the intervention.

Conclusion: Exercise plays an equivalent role to CR in terms of energy balance; however, it can also improve aerobic fitness, which has other important cardiovascular and metabolic implications

You said "Aerobic training group performed 50 minutes of aerobics 5 times a week for the entire duration. Results: No additional effects of aerobic exercise on weight or body fat levels"

However, if one looks in the intervention, the diet group had a 25% caloric deficit, while the diet plus exercise had a 12.5% caloric deficit and and 12.5%increase in energy expenditure via exercise. In other words, total caloric deficit was 25% for both groups. Assuming the full study used aerobic exercise as its modality then I wouldn't expect any significant difference between the two.

[ChrisNTX]

Regarding strength training versus aerobics reference you posted. Here is the full abstract.

Effects of strength or aerobic training on body composition, resting metabolic rate, and peak oxygen consumption in obese dieting subjects
A Geliebter, MM Maher, L Gerace, B Gutin, SB Heymsfield and SA Hashim
Obesity Research Center, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY 10025, USA. AG658@columbia.edu

Given that resting metabolic rate (RMR) is related largely to the amount of fat-free mass (FFM), the hypothesis was that strength training, which stimulates muscle hypertrophy, would help preserve both FFM and RMR during dieting. In a randomized controlled intervention trial, moderately obese subjects (aged 19-48 y) were assigned to one of three groups: diet plus strength training, diet plus aerobic training, or diet only. Sixty-five subjects (25 men and 40 women) completed the study. They received a formula diet with an energy content of 70% of RMR or 5150 +/- 1070 kJ/d (x +/- SD) during the 8-wk intervention. They were seen weekly for individual nutritional counseling. Subjects in the two exercise groups, designed to be isoenergetic, trained three times per week under supervision. Those in the strength-training group performed progressive weight-resistance exercises for the upper and lower body. Those in the aerobic group performed alternate leg and arm cycling. After 8 wk, the mean amount of weight lost, 9.0 kg, did not differ significantly among groups. The strength-training group, however, lost significantly less FFM (P < 0.05) than the aerobic and diet-only groups. The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass and grip strength. Mean RMR declined significantly, without differing among groups. Peak oxygen consumption increased the most for the aerobic group (P = 0.03). In conclusion, strength training significantly reduced the loss of FFM during dieting but did not prevent the decline in RMR.

You said,"Conclusion: in an isoenergetic comparison (meaning they burned the same amount of calories during the workouts), the strength training group lost significantly more fat than the aerobic training group. Additionally, the aerobic group lost significantly more lean body mass (muscle) than the strength training group".

It said the the strength training group loss significantly less fat free mass than the aerobic and diet-only groups. It never said the aerobics group lost significantly more lean body mass than the strength training group. Maybe I missed something. Also as a sidenote, the strength training group was progressive, however there was not mention of progression in the aerobics group. Curious as to how that would have played out if there was a progression.

I am a huge believer in resistance training, especially during periods of caloric restriction to minimize, maintain or even increase fat free mass. No issue with me there at all.

[ChrisNTX]

The EPOC reference you posted. Here is the abstract.

Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM.
Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Ohio University, 128 Irvine Hall, Athens, OH 45701, USA. mschuenke@hotmail.com

Studies have shown metabolism to remain elevated for hours following resistance exercise, but none have gone beyond 16 h, nor have they followed a whole body, high intensity exercise protocol. To examine the duration of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) following a period of heavy resistance exercise, seven healthy men [mean (SD) age 22 (3) years, height 177 (8) cm, mass 83 (10) kg, percentage body fat 10.4 (4.2)%] engaged in a 31 min period of resistance exercise, consisting of four circuits of bench press, power cleans, and squats. Each set was performed using the subject's own predetermined ten-repetition maximum and continued until failure. Oxygen consumption ( ) measurements were obtained at consistent times (34 h pre-, 29 h pre-, 24 h pre-, 10 h pre-, 5 h pre-, immediately post-, 14 h post-, 19 h post-, 24 h post-, 38 h post-, 43 h post-, and 48 h post-exercise). Post-exercise measurements were compared to the baseline measurements made at the same time of day. The was significantly elevated ( P<0.05) above baseline values at immediately post, 14, 19, and 38 h post-exercise. Mean daily values for both post-exercise days were also significantly elevated above the mean value for the baseline day. These results suggest that EPOC duration following resistance exercise extends well beyond the previously reported duration of 16 h. The duration and magnitude of the EPOC observed in this study indicates the importance of future research to examine a possible role for high intensity resistance training in a weight management program for various populations.

PMID: 11882927 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE


It says mean values were significantlly elevated above mean value for baseline day. Well how much? Another huge factor is did they take into account the thermic effect of food within this 38 post workout window? Does not the thermic effect of food not have an effect on increased metabolism? It still didn't mention if the caloric expenditure of EPOC was greater than a cardio session as you said in the cardio thread. You did say "New Rules of Lifting is absolutely fantastic for building muscle, which burns much more calories post workout than cardio does during a workout". The reference you posted did not address the issue whatsoever. Cardio (and Body Pump) instructor - will Burn the fat, feed the muscle work for me?

[ChrisNTX]

A different look at EPOC. Here is the abstract.

Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.LaForgia J, Withers RT, Gore CJ.
School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA. joe.laforgia@unisa.edu.au

Recovery from a bout of exercise is associated with an elevation in metabolism referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). A number of investigators in the first half of the last century reported prolonged EPOC durations and that the EPOC was a major component of the thermic effect of activity. It was therefore thought that the EPOC was a major contributor to total daily energy expenditure and hence the maintenance of body mass. Investigations conducted over the last two or three decades have improved the experimental protocols used in the pioneering studies and therefore have more accurately characterized the EPOC. Evidence has accumulated to suggest an exponential relationship between exercise intensity and the magnitude of the EPOC for specific exercise durations. Furthermore, work at exercise intensities >or=50-60% VO2max stimulate a linear increase in EPOC as exercise duration increases. The existence of these relationships with resistance exercise at this stage remains unclear because of the limited number of studies and problems with quantification of work intensity for this type of exercise. Although the more recent studies do not support the extended EPOC durations reported by some of the pioneering investigators, it is now apparent that a prolonged EPOC (3-24 h) may result from an appropriate exercise stimulus (submaximal: >or=50 min at >or=70% VO2max; supramaximal: >or=6 min at >or=105% VO2max). However, even those studies incorporating exercise stimuli resulting in prolonged EPOC durations have identified that the EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise. But this figure may need to be increased when studies utilizing intermittent work bouts are designed to allow the determination of rest interval EPOCs, which should logically contribute to the EPOC determined following the cessation of the last work bout. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the earlier research optimism regarding an important role for the EPOC in weight loss is generally unfounded. This is further reinforced by acknowledging that the exercise stimuli required to promote a prolonged EPOC are unlikely to be tolerated by non-athletic individuals. The role of exercise in the maintenance of body mass is therefore predominantly mediated via the cumulative effect of the energy expenditure during the actual exercise.



PMID: 17101527 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Notice that EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of exercise. The last sentence says that the energy expenditure of the exercise itself is more important.

I'll let the readers of this forum make an informed opinion about this matter.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.