That All-Important Cardio!
 

An article of interest from "The New York Times" (nytimes.com):



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 21, 2005
Weight-Loss Theory Is Losing Some of Its Strength
By MARTICA HEANER
BARBARA WOODWORTH, 35, a social worker in Seattle, wanted to drop 40 pounds. Alisa Rivera, 39, a college adviser at the University of California, Los Angeles, also wanted to lose weight. She also wanted to build long, lean muscle. So the two women routinely began to lift weights. But like many of the other 36 million women nationwide who each year pick up dumbbells hoping to lose pounds or develop a sculptured body, both Ms. Woodworth and Ms. Rivera ended up disappointed because the strategy is not as simple - or as effective - as it sounds.

Personal trainers, fitness instructors, magazines and books have sold a double-barreled promise that any strength training builds muscle and that having more muscle dramatically speeds metabolism, increasing the calories a person burns while at rest. With all that extra calorie burning, the story goes, excess weight comes off effortlessly.

The story is wrong in two ways, researchers say. First, muscle is not such an amazing calorie burner. "Even if weight training increases muscle and metabolism, there is little evidence showing that it is enough to cause weight loss," said Joseph Donnelly, the director of the Energy Balance Laboratory at the University of Kansas, who has extensively reviewed studies on the link between resistance training and weight loss.

And second, many who try weight training - especially women - fail to do what it actually takes to build more muscle. They lift too light a weight, or they neglect to progress to heavier weights as they grow stronger. And often, women who take up weight lifting also diet. In fact, it is nearly impossible to increase muscle while cutting calories.

Regular resistance training, done correctly, has many benefits. It can prevent some of the muscle loss that occurs with weight loss. It can also lower body fat levels and even help preserve bone mass. But the idea that it can magically increase calorie-burning is "a very big stretch," said Edward Melanson, an assistant professor in the division of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Claims that resistance training can send metabolism skyrocketing are easy to find. A Google search using the terms "metabolism" and "weights" produces thousands of Web sites, many of which say that anyone can lose weight and build muscle through strength training, even doing routines that aren't particularly strenuous.

Books like Kathy Smith's "Lift Weights to Lose Weight" also perpetuate the myth that building muscle supercharges metabolism and quickly leads to weight loss. In "Smart Girls Do Dumbbells," Judith Sherman-Wolin claims that resistance-training can "melt away those stubborn pounds you've been trying to lose all your life." And Jorge Cruise's best seller, "8 Minutes in the Morning," advises readers to forget aerobics or grueling workouts because doing his two strength-building exercises a day "will help you firm up five pounds of lean muscle within the first few weeks, allowing your body to burn an extra 250 calories per day." Ms. Woodworth of Seattle said, "Practically every fitness book and magazine I ever read said strength training boosts metabolism so you lose weight easier and faster."

Before taking up weight lifting, she had already lost 15 pounds in about three months by cutting calories and walking and running for an hour three times a week. With 40 pounds still to shed, she turned to what she had heard was the magic bullet.

Her trainer advised her to lift four times a week, cut her cardiovascular exercise to less than 30 minutes but still keep dieting. After six weeks, she was frustrated to find she had gained two pounds. That added weight probably wasn't muscle. Decreasing her high-calorie-burning walks and runs was the more likely culprit. Lifting weights burns few calories - "at least the way the average nonathlete does it and certainly the way most women tend to do it, using relatively low weights and few sets," Dr. Donnelly said. The same time spent an aerobic workout could double the calorie burn.

Once Ms. Woodworth increased her time on cardio, she lost the added weight.

Proponents of the theory that weight lifting leads to weight loss argue that it is the long-term effect of gaining more muscle, which burns more calories at rest, that causes weight loss. Still, that has never been proven in studies.

Studies show that even women who do what it takes to get stronger develop only two to four pounds of muscle after six months of progressive lifting. Given that one pound of muscle burns between 7 to 13 calories a day (as determined by studies that measured oxygen and blood flow to tissues), that means the average boost in metabolism is only 14 to 52 calories a day, said Dympna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan.

The effect of weight lifting "on metabolism is minor and certainly not the savior of dieters," said William Kraemer, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut.

A recent yearlong study of 59 sedentary women at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated what little difference weight training can make in weight loss. About a third of the women lifted weights three times a week, another third did yoga three times a week, and the last third did neither. All the women followed a daily diet of 1,200 to 1,500 calories for the entire year and walked five days a week. In the end, those who had lifted weights or practiced yoga lost as much weight and fat - but no more - than those who only dieted and walked.

Surprisingly, many of the women became no stronger. "We were looking at whether women would stick to the routine, and if so, would they resistance train intensely enough," explained Kara Gallagher, the lead researcher. "It appears that many did not."

When people lift light weights and fail to progressively increase the load, they only increase endurance, Dr. Kraemer said.

After turning "doughy," Ms. Rivera of Los Angeles followed a few workouts using five-pound weights that she'd seen in Glamour and Shape magazines. "After three months the scale hadn't budged," she said. "I didn't see much of a difference in muscle tone."

Eventually she realized that light weights were not enough. "When I progressed from a five-pound dumbbell and began to lift heavier, my arms and butt got firmer within three weeks, although I still did not lose weight," she said.

For those looking to build a more sculptured body, dieting may be counterproductive. "To create new muscle tissue you need to eat enough, not cut calories, to fuel the process," said Karen Reznik Dolins, the director of nutrition at Altheus, a sports center in Rye, N.Y., and a nutrition adviser to the New York Knicks.

Genetics can also help determine the impact that weight lifting can have on muscle development and metabolism.

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst looked at almost 600 men and women who did a strenuous, progressive resistance routine for three months, according to a study in this month's Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Three percent were "high responders," some of whom doubled their strength. One percent were "low responders," who became only 1 percent stronger than they were when they started. The majority of men and women increased muscle size 15 to 25 percent; and most men improved their muscle strength 40 percent while women increased theirs 65 percent.

Shannan Catlett, a fashion sales executive in Manhattan, said lifting heavy weights helped tone her slimmer body. After she lost 50 pounds by using the elliptical machine and treadmill and by following a healthier diet, she improved her muscle definition with weights.

"I never lost weight from strength training, but my butt got smaller and I got stronger and firmer all over," Ms. Catlett, 41, said. "I still have to make sure that I'm always fit in regular cardio to maintain my weight."

It's true that weight training alone is not the most effective means of losing weight; cardio is the thing that will do that job. However, far too often, when women are losing more than 2 pounds per week, they're losing precious muscle, along with water and fat. Weight training helps to counteract that loss, causes you to lose body fat (and isn't that what you really want gone?!) and also has the added benefit of increasing bone mass -- two things the first two women mentioned in that article should begin to be concerned about. I know that I don't want to be one of those old ladies that has to lean on the arms of chairs to get up out of them because I don't have the muscular strength any longer to get myself up unassisted. I also don't want to have to live in terror that if I fall down, my brittle bones will break because I never bothered to concern myself with maintaining their mass as I -- or before I -- aged.

That's all in the future, though. In the here and now, when my first priority is losing weight, I can tell you that when I'm down to my goal size, I don't want to be one of those "skinny fat" women who, while they're wearing a size 6, are all jiggly and smooshy. For that reason, I'm doing lots of cardio and weight training both.

There is also the fact that if you want to get the maximum results from your time on the elliptical or exercise bike or treadmill, you have to actually have the muscle to push your body along! The more strength you have, the more effective your time spent doing cardio....weaker muscles, weaker cardio workout. Not to mention that I LIKE feeling strong and capable!! It's a really good feeling -- and it spills over into your psychological health as well.

I would hate for anyone here to read this article and use it to justify not doing weight training, or just take the article at face value and write off the value of resistance training in weight loss. This author mentions the studies that support the premise of her article; she completely leaves out the studies that support the incorporation of weight training in an exercise regimen that includes cardio as well. Those studies revealed that the folks who do both cardio and resistance training and reduced their calories (while getting adequate protein and carbs) lost more weight and body fat than those who did cardio alone. (Case in point, our own Meg [see her pic and story in both the Maintenance and Ladies Who Lift forums] who lost 122 pounds in a year by doing both cardio and weight training, and living on 1600 healthy calories/day, among others.)

I'll get off my :soap: now; I'll be interested to hear the response of others who have more experience with weight training than I. I think it's a one-sided, incomplete assertion, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

The following links give some good information:

http://www.recsports.hhp.ufl.edu/fi...rweightloss.pdf
http://www.deliciouslivingmag.com/m...4&articleID=567
http://www.stumptuous.com/cardio.html

Mainly I think that's bunkum!

It said stuff like "women tend to lift light weights which don't build muscle". What about the women who do lift BIG BEEFY WEIGHTS? And like you say Sarah, it's better to weigh 170lbs and be a size 6 of rock solid buff muscle, than to weigh 140 and be a size 6 of wobbly smoosh! I think most women who lift weights will agree (or perhaps it's just me...) that it's body SIZE not body WEIGHT that really matters... Well that's what I reckon anyway, cos I've stopped weighing myself since I started weight lifting!

I hope this article doesn't put anyone off! Weights kick butt! (And you will be able to too, from all that muscle building!)

:lol: BIG BEEFY WEIGHTS -- that's great!! :lol: I wish we could rid all women of the misconception that lifting something heavier than 5 pounds will turn them into Arnold Schwartzenegger!

The article also says that a muscle burns 14-17 calories (or something like that) --- and I've always heard it was 50-70. The article also refers to building "long, lean muscles," and you get the muscles you've got. You can't pick their shape! You can *feel* longer and leaner, but that has more to do with flexibility and agility than actual muscular shape, I think. :dunno:

My personal experience has been the exact opposite of what this article is saying...No offense to the NY Times, but in my opinion the article is pretty much :censored:

I lost my first 30 lbs doing ONLY weights. This -- of course -- is not the best way to do it, but it worked. I hate cardio SO much that I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I did weights 3 hours a week and followed a low carb/high protein eating plan and lost 30 pounds. Now I'm doing cardio in addition to the weights because (a) I hit a plateau, and (b) it really is key to a healthy body (heart,lungs -- not just the weight-loss stuff), and (c) I should have been doing it all along. But I have to say, I'm not losing weight any faster doing the cardio. Which is weird and a little disappointing. But I do FEEL much better...sleeping better, better mood, etc.

So, no one should do it the way I did it, but I think my experience proves that the article is a bit "off." Then again, maybe my body reacts better to weights than cardio and I'm just "not normal." :)

Who knows. :dizzy:

I think the missing concept in this article is food. It's absolutely, 100% possible to lose weight by doing no exercise at all. I don't recommend it, of course, but it's possible with the "Calories In, Calories Out" truism.

When I first started my WL journey, I didn't change my eating at all but decided to exercise. I of course learned the un-fun truth that, while exercise is absolutely important, it accounts for only a small portion of the weight loss equation. How disheartening (yet empowering at the same time!) it was when I figured out that an hour on the elliptical equalled, well, about a cheeseburger with the fixins.

So absolutely -- one can lose weight by doing cardio and eating well, lifting weights and eating well, or doing no exercise and eating well. The exercise has many, many health benefits, and I don't mean to minimize them (****, I can't get ENOUGH exercise these days because it just makes me feel so darn good), but the food is the bigger part of the equation, IMHO.

I didn't interpret the article the same way you guys did. I didn't get that it was trying to debunk reports involving the benefits of PROPER weight training. Rather, I read it as more of a jab at the mass media selling weight training as the be all, end all of weight loss with complete disregard of the other components of the process.

For instance, the article specifically addresses the fact that gradually increasing your weight load and continuing full blown cardio will yield results. But it is clear in pointing out that most magazines tout fast results with minimum effort - and we all know that doesn't exist.

I took the main point to be that weight training IS good for you but that you have to do it properly and in conjunction with every other important element of weight loss (cardio, eating, etc.).

While I completely agree that there are plenty of women who get it right and have the bodies to prove it, there are still more than enough who thumb through Shape (Glamour, Cosmo...) magazine and expect to get thin and toned with the wimpy routines they publish all because the magazine says they can. I see them at the gym every single day.

Regarding the metablolism increase, IMO the calorie burn is more accurate when you are talking about your average woman. I absolutely beleive that there are women who are burning an extra 50-70 calories a day but I suspect they've lifted heavy for a long enough time to have built more muscle than the average woman has any intention of ever building.

I think all of the points you guys have are correct and I don't see contradictions to them in the article. I'll go back and read it again tomorrow though. I might have been biased after actually reading one of those hyped up articles in Fitness magazine at the gym tonight. I should probably stick to shopping catalogs since they sell stuff that I actually BUY.

I wish I had time to throw in my two cents about the article - and plan to come back later to do just that :) - but wanted to respond to Sarah's point, above. When I attended a lecture on metabolism and obesity given by one of the lead researchers in the field (Rudolph Leibel), he said his research shows that we burn 50 calories per KILOGRAM of LEAN BODY MASS. Which works out to about 20 - 25 calories per pound of LBM. LBM is more than just muscle, of course - it's water, hair, bone, skin ... whatever ISN'T fat in your body.

I'm not sure how one would compute the weight of solely muscle in your body, so I just leave the number alone. But I think it's conceivable that the number quoted in the article IS correct. Regardless, the important point is that muscle burns calories and fat doesn't, so yay muscle!

Back later!

Jennifer: exactly! I am really into running, a sport that in theory excelerates fat loss. Funny thing though, we all tend to go out and eat after we run, or we go for coffee and people often order the high cal lattes... most of us have been struggling with weight gains... hmmmmmm...

The fact is, calories count.... I also figured this out, running a half-marathon= 1 oversized dessert and often doesn't fully burn off 1 large portioned greasy meal.

I must admit though when I saw personal trainers they usually encouraged 30-45 mins of cardio at least 3-5 times a week, so they never tried to sell me that weight-lifting was the only thing we had to do for a great body, just something that we all should incorporate into our lifestyles. When I weight lift consistently I have always seen awesome results (I will be the first to admit I am a high responder).

Cheers!

Ali

A recent yearlong study of 59 sedentary women at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated what little difference weight training can make in weight loss. About a third of the women lifted weights three times a week, another third did yoga three times a week, and the last third did neither. All the women followed a daily diet of 1,200 to 1,500 calories for the entire year and walked five days a week. In the end, those who had lifted weights or practiced yoga lost as much weight and fat - but no more - than those who only dieted and walked.

One other thing, and then I'll let this one rest :lol: . I'd give money to SEE these women after these diets. I bet dollars to, um, protein powder, that the women who lifted weights (provided they're lifting heavy) *look* smaller and fitter than the other groups and/or have lowered their body fat %s. By focusing exclusively on the scale, the authors just aren't giving the whole story.

OK, off :soap: .

Okay, I hate to seem argumentative but that is the paragraph just under what you quoted, teapot. It implies that the women WERE NOT lifting heavy or even necessarily sticking to the routine.

I don't beleive the intent of the article is to discourage PROPER weight training. Instead, I feel it is trying to dispell the myth that resistance training alone (done incorrectly at that) is going to result in drastic weight loss or overall health benefits. With so much money being made in the weight loss industry I appreciate any publication that helps people take off their rose colored glasses and realize that sucess doesn't come effortlessly or without commitment. Personally, I think the article does just that.

Not to be argumentative back, :lol: but the excerpt you cite only points out another problem with the article... there's no control in that "experiment!" The claim is "A recent yearlong study of 59 sedentary women at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated what little difference weight training can make in weight loss."

So is it intending to point out the ineffectiveness of improper weight training, debunk myths about proper weight training, or point out problems with spurious claims about effective/ineffective weight training, or what? You can't debunk myths about proper weight training if your sample isn't even doing it right!

Just seems extremely muddled to me. Sorry to belabor.

I completely understand your point. So please don't think I'm trying to argue with you personally as I only mean to offer my point of view on the article.

What I got from the article, though, was that the "experiment" INTENTIONALLY lacked control for the sake of determining how the average woman would go about weight training and what her fate would likely be. Had there been a 4th control group that was guided in proper methods (as a opposed to being left to their own devices armed only with information they've seen in mass media outlets) I am certain their results would have far exceeded those of the other groups.

The fact that they didn't test the results of proper weight training is what makes me think the point wasn't to prove that there aren't benefits if you do it right but to prove that the results don't come as easily as many people will have you believe.

BTW - I've seen great progress as a result of incorporating weight training into my exercise plan. So, I hope it doesn't seem as though I am trying to argue that there aren't any benefits to resistance training. But, I do get incredibly irritated when I see magazines or books that are selling millions of copies because they promise to have the secret to losing weight and firming your body without having to work for it.

Now, I absolutely ADORE Oprah and O magazine is one of the few that I can actually read cover to cover. But here is the intro to one of the fitness articles that appeared in this past January's issue.

Now we all know marching in place for 1 measly minute and doing two exercises a day with 10 pound weights is NOT going to cause fast weight loss, much less "deliver the world". And this from a reputable magazine that LOTS of women would swear by. I honestly think that it is THIS kind of information about weight training that the article here is trying to contradict.

This article infuriates me! :devil:

There is some vital information left out and only one side of the story mentioned.

What about the women who do lift heavier weights? Nothing is said about their results. There isn't enough information to make an accurate conclusion about the benefits of lifting weights.

I am just now getting into heavier weights in my program (finally bought myself a set of adjustable dumbbells). Even with the smaller weights I have considerably boosted my metabolism. However it is a combination of many factors: healthy nutrition, enough calories of the right kinds of foods, cardio, weights and stretching.

And the fact that I don't want to lose weight. I want to lose fat! I want to be fit, trim, and well-defined not flabby and squishy. :lol:

Idiots! UGH! %$&#! :lol:

Exactly. Jawsmom, I share your frustration with the ridiculous claims and recommendations we see in magazines, etc. like the one you shared. I agree with you that the above article addresses that effectively.

My issue with this article is exactly that of the soon2be154, teapot, and the others: I don't believe that the article comes close to adequately addressing the many positive benefits of lifting weights, when done heavily and regularly enough to be effective. I heard that this article was posted here by a member of this forum who said that after reading this article she didn't feel guilty any more about not doing weight training. Now I don't advocate guilt as a motivator -- :lol: -- least of all for someone who's already working very hard, but this is exactly why I feel this article fails. If the intended subtext is that, when done properly, weight training has value in a weight loss regime, that message is pretty much indiscernable.

A lot of women feel, I believe erroneously, that weight training is only beneficial AFTER they've lost the weight, rather than concurrently, and this article does little if anything to dispel that belief. On the contrary, it seems to support it! Of course, this author can write anything she wants as long as someone is willing to read it -- just like the authors of all those articles that promise miraculous results with a 5# weight lifted twice a week. God bless free speech! I just think it's a shame that this article does so little to convey the positive impact of effective weight lifting within an overall weight loss-motivated exercise regimen.