Three Surprising Revelations About the Energetic Costs of Weight Training | Effects of Intensity, Rest, Speed & More

The patterns that emerge in Figure 1-3 already suggest that Crossfit gyms are the places where the average user will "leave the most calories" on the floor. Even regular circuit training programs burn ~10kcal/min (Gettman 1981). Graduate research from 2013 suggests that exhausting Crossfit workouts can burn as much as 20kcal/min (Babiash 2013).

From previous SuppVerity articles, you will remember that the number of calories the classic cardio equipment will tell you you'd burned during your last session often is completely off. You have also learned about a year ago that even the best fitness trackers have a margin of error of ~10% - and that's for walking, jogging or running, where it's really easy to estimate the energy requirements. And, assuming that you've been around for quite some time, you may remember that there's credible evidence that we systematically underestimate the energy expenditure of push-ups, pull-ups, burpees and other bodyweight exercises.

If you know all that, you're a smart alec, but do you also know how many calories you've really left at the gym during your last resistance training workout? I can guarantee, it's not what your fitness tracker is telling you.

Learn more about alleged and true fat burner at the SuppVersity

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

DMAA (Jack3D) - The Good, the Bad & the Evil

How 'Harmless' are T2-Based Fat Burners, Really?

DMHA a Legitimate DMAA Successor

Fat Burners: Non-Stimulant, Non-Effective?

BizzyDiet Fat ↓, FitMissBurn no Add. Effect

Now, I would be lying if I told you that I knew the correct value, what I can and will tell you, however, is how you can get much closer to a realistic estimate by using the data from Rodrigo Ferro Magosso, et al.'s recent review "of the relationship between aerobic and anaerobic metabolism and the main factors that affect EE during RT exercises" (Magosso 2017). As the Brazilian researchers point out, it is common for to determine the exercise-induced energy expenditure (EE) of resistance exercise (RE) using oxygen uptake (VO2) measurements. In that, scientists will usually sum up the aerobic component, the amount of energy that's spent on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), and the anaerobic component to arrive at an estimate of the total energy requirements of the workout. An estimate that may hold up to three surprises.

Surprise #1: Most of the energy you spend during your resistance training sessions feeds into the aerobic (="cardio"), not the anaerobic (=sprint & lift) energy cycle

The first thing that may seem counter-intuitive is that the existing scientific evidence clearly indicates that, despite the predominance of anaerobic metabolism during the actual lifts, the largest part of the energy you spend during and after your gym sessions is spent aerobically.

Figure 1: Rel. (%) contribution of the aerobic (intraset + EPOC) and anaerobic component of energy expenditure to total energy requirements of different resistance training protocols (figure is based on a tabular overview of the data from the studies by Scott and Campanholi in Magosso 2017); LP = leg press, BP = bench press, BC = biceps curls.

Let's take look at the sample data from four studies I plotted for you in Figure 1. It shows quite conclusively that even in the most anaerobic workout, the 50% 1RM 21 rep bench press trial in Scott 2009, most of the spent energy fed into the aerobic, not the anaerobic energy pathway (the average over all four studies is 72% to 28% for aerobic to anaerobic, respectively).

Surprise #2: In response to strength training you burn hardly more energy than you would if you took your dog for the literally walk in the park.

As a SuppVersity reader this shouldn't be that surprising, but for a handful of bros who've always wondered why they're getting fat despite spending 2h in the gym on a daily basis, this may come as a revelation: the highest hitherto recorded energy expenditure during a resistance training workout is 8.3kcal/min that's significantly less than what you'd burn during a decently paced jog.

Figure 2: Plot of the influence of rest intervals, sequential vs. super-set training and using a slow 4s vs. fast 2s rep tempo on the energy expenditure (kcal/min) of healthy subjects in selected studies (based on tabular overview in Magosso 2017).

As you can see in Figure 2 this was observed in Kelleher's 2010 study comparing a regular sequential multi-set to a super-set resistance training pattern - otherwise the workouts were identical with 4 sets to failure at 70%1RM and 1 min rest between sets and supersets of bench presses and bent over rows, biceps curls and lying triceps extensions and leg extensions and leg curls. This is in line with the observation that shorter rest times will increase the energy expenditure per time unit significantly - you got to keep in mind, though, that the reduced workout time with shorter inter-set rest will also reduce the total metabolic cost of the workout... after all, surprise #1 was that most of the energy is spent in-between the sets and after your workout. The simple assumption "The less I rest, the more I burn" is thus not accurate.

Surprise #3: A single rep burns hardly more extra calories than what your body requires to maintain its basal metabolic function

Likewise inaccurate is the assumption that you'd spend a lot of energy on the actual act of lifting a weight or, as it was the case for two out of three studies the results of which I've plotted for you in Figure 3, pushing it up on the bench.

Figure 3: Effect of exercise intensity expressed in % of 1RM on energy expenditure per repetition (kcal/rep) in studies w/ trained individuals by Scott et al. (2006, 2009 & 2011 | based on tabular overview in Magosso 2017).

As you can see, the energy expenditure per rep ranges from 0.42kcal/min to 1.99kcal/min and increases exponentially (you can see that in Scott 2009) with the amount of weight (relative to your one-rep max = 1RM) you lift.

If you haven't done so already, read my ages-old article about "The Fallacy of Working Out To 'Burn Calories', Ladies & Gents" | more

Bottom line: I bet some of you are disappointed - I mean, it would be awesome if lifting burned as many calories as you feel it should after an intense hour on the grind, right? The truth is, however, compared to "cardio", let alone HIIT training, the energy expenditure during and after resistance training workouts is rather mediocre.

The good news is: You're not hitting the gym to "burn calories", anyway. If you want to lose body fat, diet! If you still think of your workouts as a means to make up for those three slices of pizza or the five bottles of beer, it's no wonder you're not happy with what you see in the mirror. Diet to lose body fat, lift heavy to maintain or even improve your hard earned muscle mass. That's the way it's done - irrespective of how many calories you burn in the gym and/or the hours after your workout | Comment!

References:

• Babiash, Paige E. Determining the energy expenditure and relative intensity of two Crossfit workouts. Diss. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE, 2013.
• Campanholi Neto, Jose. "Demanda energética na sessão de exercício resistido com características de hipertrofia e resistência muscular localizada." (2015): 118-f.
• Gettman, Larry R., and Michael L. Pollock. "Circuit weight training: a critical review of its physiological benefits." The Physician and Sportsmedicine 9.1 (1981): 44-60.
• Kelleher, Andrew R., et al. "The metabolic costs of reciprocal supersets vs. traditional resistance exercise in young recreationally active adults." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 24.4 (2010): 1043-1051.
• Magosso, Rodrigo Ferro, José Campanholi Neto, and João Paulo. "A Review of Ergogenesis and Effect of Training Variables on Energy Expenditure in Resistance Training Exercises." (2017).
• Mazzetti, Scott, et al. "Effect of explosive versus slow contractions and exercise intensity on energy expenditure." Medicine and science in sports and exercise 39.8 (2007): 1291.
• Ratamess, Nicholas A., et al. "The effect of rest interval length on metabolic responses to the bench press exercise." European journal of applied physiology 100.1 (2007): 1-17.
• Scott, Christopher B. "Contribution of blood lactate to the energy expenditure of weight training." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20.2 (2006): 404-411.
• Scott, Christopher B., Alicia Croteau, and Tyler Ravlo. "Energy expenditure before, during, and after the bench press." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23.2 (2009): 611-618.
• Scott, Christopher B., Michael P. Leary, and Andrew J. TenBraak. "Energy expenditure characteristics of weight lifting: 2 sets to fatigue." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism 36.1 (2010): 115-120.
• Scott, Christopher B., et al. "Aerobic, anaerobic, and excess postexercise oxygen consumption energy expenditure of muscular endurance and strength: 1-set of bench press to muscular fatigue." The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 25.4 (2011): 903-908.

Intermittent Fasting + Resistance Training: 1st 8-Wk Human Study to Provide Modest Evidence of Benefits During Cuts

You have heard me argue based on theoretical considerations before that "intermittent fasting" is probably best used during cuts, not during "bulks" - the results of the study at hand, even though they may not show stat. sign. inter-group differences, support this suggestion.

You will be surprised, but the latest article Tinsley et al. (2016) published in the European Journal of Sport Science is indeed the very first study to investigate the effects of time-restricted feeding (TRF) "on nutrient intake, body composition, and strength" when they are combined with a standardized resistance training regimen.

That's too good to be true? Well, wait until you've learned more about the methodology and results, but it is indeed cool that someone finally studied the effects of what the majority of people think of if you talk about "intermittent fasting" (that's in contrast to scientists who often think of alternative day fasting when they hear "intermittent fasting, the benefits of which I have discussed only recently, read more).

Do you have to worry about fasting when your're dieting!?

Breakfast and Circadian Rhythm

Does Meal Timing Matter?

Habits Determine Effects of Fasting

Fasting Works for Obese, Too!?

Does the Break- Fast-Myth Break?

Breakfast? (Un?) Biased Review

The subjects were recreationally active, but probably less active than the average SuppVersity reader (because they hadn't been following a consistent RT programme over the previous three months). The study was a randomized controlled 8-week trial that did or didn't involve time-restricted feeding (TRF, 4h eating, 20h fasting window) and identical resistance training (RT) programs:

"The RT programme for both groups consisted of three nonconsecutive days per week of training performed at the gym of the participant’s choice. Participants alternated between upper and lower body workouts. The upper body workout consisted of barbell bench press, seated row machine, dumbbell shoulder press, lat pulldown machine, dumbbell biceps curls, and triceps extension machine. The lower body workout consisted of barbell squat or hip sled machine, lunges with dumbbells, leg curl machine, leg extension machine, and calf raise machine.

Participants who were unfamiliar with the RT exercises were instructed regarding the proper execution of each exercise. Participants were also instructed to utilize a weight that elicited muscular failure after 8–12 repetitions and to adjust the weight as necessary to meet this criterion. Four sets of each exercise were performed and a 90- second rest period between sets was assigned (Tinsley. 2016; my emphasis).

The variables the scientists tracked were, as previously mentioned, the subjects' individual nutrient intakes (as reported in a repeated four-day dietary record) and changes in body composition (X-ray absorptiometry using a "Hologic Discovery W" device for whole-body scans; muscle size was assessed by ultra-sound measurements) and muscular strength (assessed by obtaining the 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) using the hip sled and barbell bench press exercises).

How long did they fast? 20h? Isn't that too much? With a feeding window of 4 hours (at any time between 4PM and midnight | as in Kelly, 2007), the TRF(=IF) regimen in the study at hand is significantly shorter than that in the average IF-dieter who will probably use 6-8h fasting windows... whether the results would be fundamentally different for these shorter fasting windows of 16-18h would have significantly changed the outcome is questionable, also because the subjects fasted only on non-workout days and were allowed to eat ad-libitum on the three days on which they performed RT. Thus, further research is obviously warranted (see bottom line for suggestions).

The reasons that the results are still relevant and worth reporting are (a) they are the first of their kind and (b) it is unlikely that the effect of intermittent fasting is different for people with different training status. What may difference is the baseline response to resistance training, but that's the same for both groups (you can also argue that the response will change over time which is why it is great that the study lasted eight, not just two weeks).

IF cuts energy intake, but not body fat? True, if we focus on statistically sign.

As you can see in Figure 1, the TRF reduced energy intake did, as SuppVersity readers will have expected the reduction in daily energy intake of the subjects by ∼650 kcal per day (see Figure in the bottom line for information on the "macros") - you can only eat so much in a given time-frame and four hours are not long. What may be more interesting than the reduction in energy intake you've expected based on previous research.

Figure 1: Relative changes in body composition; none reached sign. inter-group diff., d-values indicate effect sizes which show a trend towards fat loss and lean & fat mass gains in the TRF and control group, respectively (Tinsley. 2016).

Against that background, it is quite surprising that the TRF regimen did not significantly affect the total body composition - especially the amount of body fat. In that, it is possible that this was just because the study duration was too short, but eventually 4 weeks of being in a caloric deficit should suffice. Eventually, however, the body fat (total mass and %) reduction in TRF shows that (cf. Figure 1) what's missing is only the statistical significance of the difference (and that's nor really a wonder with only N = 28 subjects in total and thus only n = 14 subjects in each group). This in turn which raises the question(s): (A) Was there a reduction in physical activity in TRF that of which we could assume that it compensated maybe 200-300kcal of the ~650kcal deficit? And (B) how accurate the 4-day food logs reflected the energy intake over the two 4-week periods during which they were recorded.

Similar questions and that criticism of the methodology can be brought forward for the lack of significant difference in the increase in cross-sectional area of the biceps brachii and rectus femoris in the two groups. If we look closely at these values and take the effect size data (values over the bars) instead of the p-values for the absolute gains as our yardstick, there is evidence that the TRF regimen impaired the lean mass gains (+2.3 kg, d = 0.25) and upper and lower body muscular endurance increases (not shown in Figure 1) that were brought about by the standardized resistance training protocol both groups followed for 8 weeks.

The lack of protein in the TRF group (0.88g/kg vs. 1.3g/kg) could be a reason for the lack of muscle gains.

So, the study had no results we can use? Not really, but there's certainly reason for further research, because (a) it would be nice to ascertain that the extent of the caloric deficit was in fact -33% (that's neither unlikely nor unheard of, but it is important enough to ask for a more rigid control) and to (b) evaluate whether the 20h fasting window was simply too large. Especially the last-mentioned follow-up study which ideally should involve a control (no fasting), a 16h- and 18h-fasting window could yield very interesting results, after all studies show that significant protein breakdown will occur only after >18h of fasting and last for ~another 24h before the body starts to react to conserve lean mass (reduced RMR, etc.).

What would be similarly interesting, though, would be having a standardized, prescribed protein intake in both groups. With "only" 72 and 81 g of protein per day in the first and second four weeks, respectively the TRF group consumed not just much less protein than the control group (107 and 97 | that's not sign. less, though due to high inter-personal variation); with only 0.88 g/kg they also consumed way less protein than any reasonable recommendation for resistance trainees [~1.6-2.2 g/kg] would suggest.

Overall, the study at hand is thus the first study to investigate the interaction between intermittent fasting and resistance training. The results appear to confirm what I have repeatedly written in the past, i.e. "intermittent fasting" is great for cutting (and potentially "recomp", i.e. losing fat while maintaining lean mass and thus improving your body composition), not so good for gaining weight, but - for the previously outlined reasons - it is not the study to yield final insights into how good / bad it actually is for these purposes and how it compares to alternate-day-fasting that produced impressive weight or rather fat loss in a very recent study | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Kelly, Caleb J. "A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults." The American journal of clinical nutrition 86.4 (2007): 1254-1255.
• Tinsley, Grant M., et al. "Time-restricted feeding in young men performing resistance training: A randomized controlled trial†." European Journal of Sport Science (2016): 1-8.

Study Quantifies Disadvantage of Doing Cardio & Weights on the Same Day: Your Fat Loss May Stall Completely

Weight training on separate days!?

In "bottom lines" of SuppVersity articles you've repeatedly read that "in spite of the promising results of the study at hand, I would still suggest that you do your cardio and resistance training on separate days if that's possible".

That's a conclusion nobody ever questioned - and that in spite of the fact that the effects of splitting strength (S) and endurance (E) training onto different days on body composition in the long term have not even been investigated, yet.

The aim of a recent study by Eklund, et al. (2016) was thus the first to investigate possible differences in body fat and lean mass, blood lipid levels and physical fitness profile following 24 weeks of volume-equated different-day and same-session combined strength and endurance training in previously untrained healthy men and women.

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

What's the Right Training 4 You?

Hypertrophy Blueprints

Fat Loss Support Blueprint

Strength Training Blueprints

Study: Over-training Exists

Recovering from the Athlete's Triad

More specifically, this was achieved through comparing adaptations following strength and endurance training performed on different days (DD) or in the same session with two different orders (ES and SE). Ah, and yes, the recruited subjects were required not to have participated in systematic strength or endurance training for at least 1 year prior to the study. The significance of the results for trained subjects is thus not exactly clear. What is clear, however is the overall study design:

"After the basal measurements of body composition, blood lipids, maximal strength and endurance performance, each participant was randomly assigned to one of the three training modes for the entire 24-week duration of the study: 1) strength and endurance training performed on different days (DD, men n=21, women n=18), 2) strength and endurance performed in the same training session with endurance preceding strength (E+S, men n=16, women n=15) or 3) vice versa, i.e. strength and endurance performed in the same training session with strength preceding endurance (S+E, men n=18, women n=14) [...] The training program has been described in detail previously (Eklund et al. 2015). In short, the training was designed to reflect recommendations for physically active individuals as well as targeted at improving both maximal strength and endurance performance. During the initial 12 weeks, the same-session subjects completed two weekly sessions of [1E+1S] or [1S+1E] (respective to the assigned training order), and five sessions per two weeks (5x [1E+1S] or [1S+1E]) during weeks 13-24. The time between training modes was 5-10 min and recovery time between training sessions 48-72 h. The DD-group adhered to the same training program but performed S and E on alternating days, i.e. completing 4 weekly training sessions during the first 12 weeks and 10 sessions per two weeks during the latter 12 weeks. Training sessions were supervised by research staff" (Eklund. 2016).

Nutritional intake was controlled through food diaries, which were filled in by the participants for three consecutive days at weeks 0, 12 and 24. Energy intake was analyzed based on the food diaries with a nutrient analysis software (Nutriflow, Flow-team Oy, Finland). The participants received written and verbal nutritional recommendations according to the national guidelines and were asked to maintain constant dietary intake throughout the intervention which included the following strength and endurance training component(s):

• Strength training mainly targeted the knee extensors and flexors as well as hip extensors, with the exercises consisting of horizontal leg press, seated hamstring curls and seated knee extensions. During the initial weeks, the exercises were performed in a circuit (2-4 sets of 15- 20 repetitions with up to 60% of 1RM) and then continued through hypertrophy-inducing training (2-5 x 8-12 at 80-85% of 1RM, 1-2 min rest) towards maximal strength training (2-5 x 3-5 at 85-95% of 1RM, 3-4 min rest). A similar periodization scheme was used for the upper body. Dumbbells and cable pulley machines were used for upper body exercises, and both machines and body weight were utilized for exercises of the trunk. The periodization was repeated during weeks 13-24 with increased training intensity and volume. The duration of each strength session was 50-60 min.
• Endurance training sessions were performed on a cycle ergometer. The training intensities were controlled through heart rate zones, which corresponded to the threshold values of aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. The training consisted of 30-50 min continuous cycling near the aerobic threshold (weeks 1-7 and 13-16), including interval training at and above the anaerobic threshold (weeks 8 and 17 onwards). The interval sessions were initiated and finished with 10-15 minute bouts below the aerobic threshold, with 5-minute altering bouts on the anaerobic threshold and below the aerobic threshold in between. 

Interestingly enough, the adherence of those participants who made it to the end of the study was close to 100% in both groups. Against that background it may be only mildly surprising that the adaptational response to the workouts was comparable in all three groups, too.

Figure 1: Rel. changes in lean mass and body fat over 24 weeks (Eklund. 2016).

A closer look at the data from the full text does yet reveal the following, at least for some of you, unquestionably significant and important differences:

• Muscle gains - Interestingly enough, the total lower body lean mass didn't increase significantly in the DD (individual days) group; measuring only the trunk lean mass, on the other hand found no increases in the SE-women and ES-men; and no increase in sleeve size was observed in ES-women and SE-men. 
• Fat loss - Fat mass decreased in all regions in the DD-groups, while significant changes in ES and SE were not found during the training intervention; furthermore, in women, the difference achieved statistical significance with DD women losing significantly more total body fat than those in the ES and SE groups 

Could the lack of effect on fat loss be a mere results of eating too much? Not really. After all, Total energy intake (MJ) at week 0, 12 and 24 in men were as follows 9.3±1.8, 10.2±2.6 and 9.5±2.6 for ES; 9.4±2.0, 9.3±1.7 and 7.9±1.7 for SE; 8.4±2.3, 9.0±1.4 and 9.2±1.6 in DD, respectively. Total energy intake was in women 8±1.2, 7.8±1.8 and 8.2±2.1 for ES; 7.6±1.2, 7.7±1.6 and 7.1±2.1 for SE; 7.0±1.9, 6.9±1.6 and 7.0±1.8 for DD, respectively. 

If it's not the diet and the training volume was strictly matched in all groups in the present study, the benefits of training on separate days must have a different reason - a possible explanation Eklund et al. list could be an increase in post-exercise energy costs with more frequent (shorter) training compared to fewer (long) long-duration session (+40% in Almuzaini et al. 1998).

Yes, you will have read conflicting Evidence: "Cardio Can BOOST Your Gains?! Do it Before Weights and be Rewarded With 28% Increased Fiber Size & VO2 Gains" | more

Bottom line: I think it's important to conclude this article by referring back to the idea from its introduction - any exercise is better than no exercise and "the present study showed that all of the three modes of combined strength and endurance training were effective in increasing maximal strength and endurance performance as well as lean body mass in healthy individuals following 24 weeks of combined strength and endurance training" (Eklund. 2016).

That the increases in endurance performance and improvements in body fat mass were larger when strength and endurance were performed on different days, however, confirms what I've written before: if possible, do cardio and weights on different days.

What exatly it is that explains the benefits will yet have to be investigated in future studies and whether or not the results would be different for trained individuals | Comment!

References:

• Almuzaini, Khalid S., Jeffrey A. Potteiger, and Samuel B. Green. "Effects of split exercise sessions on excess postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate." Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 23.5 (1998): 433-443.
• Eklund, Daniela, et al. "Fitness, body composition and blood lipids following three concurrent strength and endurance training modes." Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism ja (2016).

Cardio After Weights! Doing Resistance Before Endurance Training Has More Beneficial Effects on Leptin, Cortisol, Testosterone and Body Composition in Young Men

I can almost guarantee that the results of this study are not sex-specific. Ladies, pick up the weights fater you hit the treadmill, stairmaster, elliptical or other torture instrument you like to use!

It has been a while since the last study on exercise order (cardio or weights first) has been published. Now, scientists from the University of Kurdistan have conducted another study to investigate the effects of intrasession sequencing of concurrent resistance and endurance training on the serum leptin, testosterone, cortisol responses and body composition in obese men.

And don't worry, we are not talking about useless acute-phase data that shows no correlation with either strength or muscle gains, or fat loss (West. 2012). Sheikholeslami-Vatani and colleagues conducted an eight-week study on thirty obese young male students without continuous exercise history (age: 23.2±1.4 year, BMI: 31.8±1.6 kg/m²).

You can learn more about the optimal exercise order at the SuppVersity

Before, After or In-Between?

Exercise Order and Leptin Levels

Cardio First for Anabolism?

Large Muscle Groups First?

Combine Cardio & Strength, Right

Exercise Order Reloaded

The subjects were randomly divided into three groups: concurrent resistance-endurance (CRE, n = 10) group, concurrent endurance-resistance (CER, n = 10) group and control (C, n = 10) group (no training program). The concurrent training groups (CER and CRE) trained three times a week on alternate days for 8 weeks. The training itself consisted of which consisted of ...

"running with 70—75% of maximal heart rate (HRmax) for 10 minutes which gradually increased to 80% HRmax for 21.5 minutes [plus] resistance training consisted of 3 sets of 8 repetitions at 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in 5 resistance exercises (leg extensions, lying leg curl, triceps pushdown, bench press and lateral pull down)" (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015). 

In-between the endurance and resistance (or vice versa) training parts of the workouts, the subjects rested for 5 minutes. Blood sampling and skin-fold measurements to asses the body composition was conducted 48 hours before the start of the course and again 48 hours after the last training session (learn why waiting longer for the body comp test may have been better, but no study does that).

Figure 1: Relative changes in hormone levels (left) and absolute and relative changes in body fat fat free mass and body fat % (right) after 8 weeks of doing nothing (C) or doing cardio (CER) or weights (CRE) first (Sheikholeslami-Vatani. 2015).

I've plotted the most important results in Figure 1a & b. So, let's take a look: The first thing that everyone should see is that both workout regimen had relevant health and physique effects:

• 

  Similar gains w/ weights vs. cardio first in trained men | more.

  normalization of leptin levels (health)
• slight increases in testosterone (health)
• increases in cortisol (which are benign | learn why)
• significant reductions in body fat (health + physique)
• increases in fat free mass (health and physique)

In that, the resistance training first (CER) group came off slightly better in all tested study outcomes. Statistical significant inter-group differences, however, were observed only in comparison to the control group. In view of the fact that the body fat (total and %) improvement reached statistical significance compared to control only in the endurance first, group, yet not in the strength first group, one may still argue that the difference between cardio first (CER) and weights first (CRE) was "almost significant" ;-)

Weights or Cardio? What's the Best Visceral Fat Burner + How Often, Long and Intense Do You Have to Train | Learn more!

So, weights first is the way to go? Well, I assume I should write that doing both on separate days and thus doing having 5-6 workout days per week may have even more pronounced effects on the body composition of obese young men. In the end, though, I have no evidence to prove that doing the same amount of cardio on a separate day would actually have yielded greater improvements in body composition. Against that background and in view of the fact that three workouts per week is everything that fits into the busy schedules of the average trainee, we are left with the confirmation that (a) doing (intense) cardio and weights in one session feasible and effective when the goal are health and physique improvements and that (b) if you or your clients combine both, you better start with the weights, not the cardio part | Comment!

References:

• Sheikholeslami-Vatani, D., et al. "The effect of concurrent training order on hormonal responses and body composition in obese men." Science & Sports (2015).
• West, Daniel WD, and Stuart M. Phillips. "Associations of exercise-induced hormone profiles and gains in strength and hypertrophy in a large cohort after weight training." European journal of applied physiology 112.7 (2012): 2693-2702.

Trying to Shed That Belly? Step Off the Treadmill and Grab Some Weights, Boys & Girls! 19x More Visceral, 1.5x Higher Subcutaneous Fat Loss W/ Resistance Training in Youths

Specifically for teenagers it may be important to work out in both aerobic and anaerobic workouts. So, this would be another reason to favor the combined over the other regimen.

You will probably have overheard the "knowledgeable" trainers at the gym tell their credulous clients, who just told them they "want to lose that belly fat", that the best thing they could do was to "stop spending that much time with weight training" and to do some more (steady state) cardio. Well, in general, there's nothing wrong about steady state cardio - in fact, many studies show that it is superior to resistance training when it comes to "merely" shedding body weight (in the obese). If "weight loss" is still everything you're aspiring, though, you are either new to the SuppVersity or another of the "headline skimmers" who happen to ask questions that are answered not just in the article, but actually in one of the red boxes... ah, I am digressing.

So, what I actually wanted to tell you is that a recent study from the Universities of Ottawa and Calgary (Alberta. 2015), clearly contradicts the average commercial gym chain trainer's recommendation and shows that belly fat loss is better achieved with diet + resistance training.

Are you looking for muscle builders for the year 2015? Find inspiration in these articles:

Tri- or Multi-Set Training for Body Recomp.?

1, 2, or 5 sets per Exercise? What's "best"?

Pre-Exhaustion Exhausts Your Growth Potential

Full ROM ➯ Full Gains - Form Counts!

Battle the Rope to Get Ripped & Strong

Study Indicates Cut the Volume Make the Gains!

The subjects of the study were youngsters, 304 (! the high number of participants is a huge plus of the study) 14-18 year-old overweight and obese teenagers (mean body fat almost 50%!), to be specific, who were randomized to four different treatments for 22 weeks:

Table 1: Training progression in the Aerobic
and Resistance group (Alberga. 2015)

• aerobic training (Aerobic), 
• resistance training (Resistance),
• combined aerobic + resistance training (Combined) or 
• non-exercising control group (Control)

Adolescents,... ok, but unless they're too sarcopenic (=suffer from pronounced age-induced muscle loss) to hit the weights, your overweight clients or you, yourself, should be able to follow the same training programs the adolescents did and see similar results if you fully adhere to the following training prescriptions:

• Resistance: The duration of each session progressed to a maximum of about 45 min. Exercises were primarily performed on weight machines, and when required with dumbbells (lateral raise, shrugs, bicep curls, front raise, preacher curl, dumbbell pullover) or by using one's own body weight as resistance (lunges, sit-ups and abdominal crunches).
  

  

  Table 2: Overview of the individual workouts in the Resistance group (Alberga. 2015).

  Participants alternated among exercises from groups A1, A2, B1 and B2 shown in Table 2. Participants were asked to rest for ~ 2 min between sets and were instructed on proper breathing techniques.
• Aerobic: Participants randomized to the aerobic training group underwent a 22-week program (Table 1, left) wherein the exercise intensity and duration increased progressively to a maximum of 45 min per session. Exercise was performed on a cycle ergometer, elliptical or treadmill and participants were free to vary the machine(s) used. Exercise intensity was standardized using heart rate monitors (Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland).
• Combined: This group performed the full exercise programs done by both the aerobic and resistance training groups (Table 1, left + right) during each session for a total of 4 times per week for a maximum of 90 min per session.

Now for simplicity we assume that you'd actually achieve not just similar, but rather the exact same results as the virtual "average" study participant from Alberta's trial. In this case, I bet that most of you would prefer to lose -22.7 cm² subcutaneous body fat with resistance training than -16.2 cm² or -18.7 cm² with either aerobic or combined training. Specifically in view of the fact that only resistant and combined training triggered measurable reductions in visceral body fat, too.

Figure 1: Changes in subcutaneous (SAT) and visceral (VAT) body fat at different regions; L4L5 represents area between 4th and 5th Lumbar vertebrae; * indicates sign. difference to control; # sign. difference to aerobic (Alberga. 2015).

On the other hand, a closer look at the body fat data in Figure 1 also shows that aerobic training is the only form of training that will reduce the deep subcutaneous fat, significantly. Plus: When it's done in combination with resistance training the reductions in subcutaneous fat at L4L5, which represents the area between 4th and 5th Lumbar vertebrae, are still statistically significant and not significantly smaller than those the subjects in the resistance training only arm of the study achieved. 

Figure 2: Changes in Apo-B and Apo-B/A ratio in the three exercise and the control group (Alberta. 2015).

What may eventually tip the scale in favor of the combined training regimen, though, is not the body composition data, but rather the fact that only the combined training routine triggered statistically significant, heart healthy changes in Apolipoprotein B and the Apolipoprotein A/B ratio. After all, the latter has "repeatedly been shown to be a better marker than lipids, lipoproteins and lipid ratios" (Walldius. 2006) - scoring in the top tertile for the ApoB/A ratio, for example has consistently been associated with 89% increased risk of heart disease (Thompson. 2006) .

Figure 3: In their 2005 trial, Tufts scientists were able to show that dietary adherence, not macronutrient comp. or other diet-specific parameters is the main determinant of weight loss (Dansinger. 2005).

You must never forget, however, ... that (a) the beneficial of all four exercise regimen were achieved in the context of an energy deficit of albeit relatively, but consistent -250 kcal/day, that (b) the study had a 4-week lead-in during which all participants that didn't show at least 80% adherence to the dietary + exercise baseline intervention were kicked out, and that (c) subjects who did not attend an average 2.8 out of 3.0 workouts per week were not included in the analysis the data in Figures 1-2 is based.

This obviously leads back to Energy restriction and adherence - the two usual suspects. Without them, any effort to shed the hated body fat must fail. With them, however, only perseverance and consistency may keep from achieving your fat loss goals.

You don't believe that? Well, check out the data in Figure 3. Dansiger and his colleagues from the Tufts University tried to find out which diet, i.e. Ornish, Zone, Weight Watchers, or Atkins die, would cut the most body weight. What they found, though, was that it's always the diet the subjects could adhere to that worked the best. Against that background, it's no wonder that, in the study at hand, only those participants who had more than the minimal 70% adherence to their (aerobic) workout regimen actually lost significant amounts of deep subcutaneous fat tissue.. speaking of adherence, there were no significant differences in adherence between the three training regimen; only the control treatment on the couch obviously had 100% adherence ;-) | Comment on FB!

References:

• Alberga, A. S., et al. "Effects of aerobic and resistance training on abdominal fat, apolipoproteins and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in adolescents with obesity: the HEARTY randomized clinical trial." International journal of obesity (2005) (2015).
• Dansinger, Michael L., et al. "Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial." Jama 293.1 (2005): 43-53.
• Thompson, A., and J. Danesh. "Associations between apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein AI, the apolipoprotein B/AI ratio and coronary heart disease: a literature‐based meta‐analysis of prospective studies." Journal of internal medicine 259.5 (2006): 481-492.
• Walldius, G., and I. Jungner. "The apoB/apoA‐I ratio: a strong, new risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a target for lipid‐lowering therapy–a review of the evidence." Journal of internal medicine 259.5 (2006): 493-519.