Most Effective Methods of Fat Loss

[WillBrink]

This excellent meta analysis summarizes what I and others have always know. Resistance training (RT) beats aerobics every time, yet most think aerobics "burns" fat and spin their wheels being focused on aerobics work. For obvious reasons, this review finds RT + dietary changes most effective. Basic conclusion, if limited for time, do RT. If not, RT + aerobics is good, but don't overdo the aerobics work.

Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: comparing the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-loss and changes in fitness for adults (18-65 years old) who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015 Apr 17;14:31.


Abstract

There are number of means of methods to alter body composition, and metabolic issues, available for the adult who is overfat. The following is a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on comparing changes from treatment program for adults who are overfat based on analysis of aggregated effect size (ES) of inducing changes. So as to determine the relative effectiveness of such protocols and intervention plans of choice.

This tiered meta-analysis of 66-population based studies, and 162-studywise groups, a clear pattern of ES being established across and within treatments. First, hypocaloric balance is necessary for changing body composition, but the effectiveness for establishing imbalance does not equate with the effectiveness for body compositional changes, or any biomarkers associated with metabolic issues.

With analysis showing that there is a necessity to include exercise in combination with diet effectively elicit changes in body composition and biomarkers of metabolic issues. More importantly, the combination, resistance training (RT) was more effective than endurance training (ET) or combination of RT and ET, particularly when progressive training volume of 2-to-3 sets for 6-to-10 reps at an intensity of ≥75% 1RM, utilizing whole body and free-weight exercises, at altering body compositional measures (ES of 0.47, 0.30, and 0.40 for loss of BM, FM, and retention of FFM respectively) and reducing total cholesterol (ES = 0.85), triglycerides (ES = 0.86) and low-density lipoproteins (ES = 0.60).

Additionally RT was more effective at reducing fasting insulin levels (ES = 3.5) than ET or ET and RT. Even though generally lower ES than RT, the inclusion of ET was more effective when performed at high intensity (e.g. ≥70% VO2max or HRmax for 30-minutes 3-4x's/wk), or in an interval training style than when utilizing the relatively common prescribed method of low-to-moderate (e.g., 50-70% VO2max or HRmax for at least equal time) steady state method, ES of 0.35, 0.39, and 0.13 for BM, FM, and FFM respectively. Thus indicating that focus of treatment should be on producing a large metabolic stress (as induced by RT or high levels of ET) rather than an energetic imbalance for adults who are overfat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25973403

[scooter22]

Good stuff.

[HCrum87hc]

Excellent data. I try to tell people this all the time, but they just won't accept it. Thankfully, my wife finally accepted it about a year ago, and now loves resistance training. She used to be a cardio bunny, and it got her nowhere. She couldn't figure out why. Now she's stronger and fitter than ever, and feels much better about herself.

[Sigmax]

Great write up, thanks.

[Vandal]

Its the damn truth. With resistance training, I like to call it weights, and a good diet without my Mtn Dew I can easily dump fat.

I see a lot of people at the gym just running and running with very little resistance work with little change. Once they hit the weights the fat comes off.

[chuckman]

Will, is there consensus, or good data, that supports a certain TYPE of resistance training? I read the abstract; I guess what I am asking is, it seems like it does not matter if one uses machines or free weights as long as that > .75 1RM is achieved in the proscribed 2-3 sets/6-10 reps. Am I reading that correct?

Also, am I reading it correctly in that endurance training (i.e., "aerobic" exercise) is only beneficial to fat loss when at high level or when incorporated with interval training? Just trying to get my head wrapped around it.

[cbx]

The kind that gives you a good pump and makes you swell up!

Just kidding. It's all goals driven. What is your goal. Do your want to be skinny? Do your want to be fit? Do your want to run up mountains? Do your want big muscles that dance on command? Do you want to look like arnold? Do you just want to look good ?

Your either adding mass or losing it.

If your just fat like I was, go learn to lift with someone or get a trainer, eat well, and do cardio on top. It absolutely turbo charges your weight loss. It's not as simple as one thing. You need the combination of all things.

If I'm crunched on time, I skip cardio. That simple.

The word is getting out there on lifting. I'm seeing more women lifting at my gym. I love it. My goodness does it make them look good. To those that say that it makes them "Look like a dude"...... Yeah,,,, mmkay.... they don't know wtf they're talking about.

If you don't know what to do, or where to start, hire a trainer, he should like like this
http://mvtfitnessandhealth.com/wp-co...4/10/Derek.jpg

Or this
http://www.thebusinessleague.co.uk/w...03/fit-man.jpg

If they look like this, keep looking, because they ain't gonna teach you jack, well except maybe how to hurt yourself, because he obviously doesn't lift, and neither does she.
http://www.cardinalfitnessgym.com/im...l_training.png

This guy doesn't look like he lifts either.

http://www.desertplatinumfitness.com...ro-Picture.jpg

Lift, eat, enjoy life, repeat.

[WillBrink]

Will, is there consensus, or good data, that supports a certain TYPE of resistance training? I read the abstract; I guess what I am asking is, it seems like it does not matter if one uses machines or free weights as long as that > .75 1RM is achieved in the proscribed 2-3 sets/6-10 reps. Am I reading that correct?

In terms of fat loss, I don't believe the two have been compared. It's likely the effects is the same, assuming same muscle groups are being trained. A machine that isolates the biceps will not activate as much muscle as standing barbell curls or leg extensions vs squats. I doubt however a smith squat will differ in effects than free squats in terms of fat loss, regardless of their other differences.

Also, am I reading it correctly in that endurance training (i.e., "aerobic" exercise) is only beneficial to fat loss when at high level or when incorporated with interval training? Just trying to get my head wrapped around it.

Yes, that seems to be to jist. HIIT or RT. LISS, not so much

[unclemoak]

I was always a proponent of stepping away from the food trough being the most effective method.

[bp7178]

I was always a proponent of stepping away from the food trough being the most effective method.

Absolutely the most important component to fat loss.

...ET was more effective when performed at high intensity (e.g. ≥70% VO2max or HRmax for 30-minutes 3-4x's/wk), or in an interval training style than when utilizing the relatively common prescribed method of low-to-moderate (e.g., 50-70% VO2max or HRmax for at least equal time) steady state method...

This has been presented in quite a few studies. The findings were similar, but the above is flawed from a training standpoint in that a low intensity workout would be much longer in duration than a high intensity one. The two train different functions of the cardio vascular system.

You can go to a gym and watch people workout and see how this study can be flawed. To lift, an unfit person typically enlists the help and direction of a personal trainer, even if its just to get a basic familiarization with working out. No such entity exists on the cardio side. People just hop on and bang out time and distance at sluggish paces with little improvement. Done properly, running and other such cardio training shouldn't be different than other types of training. There should be continued measurable improvement, which is another HUGE key to any type of training. Problem is, outside of dedicated runners direction and focus in training typically doesn't exist.

Either way, diversifying one's training combined with a good diet is the best way IMO.

Really, just get your fat ass off the couch.

EDIT: VO2max and HRmax cannot be used interchangeably. They are very different. Example, a marathon pace or what could be considered a steady/long pace is typically 75-84% of VO2Max or 80-90% of HRmax. These would be felt as a quick but not necessarily a fast pace to the runner. Its also bad advice to suggest people should be training at a particular HR range if they don't have a basic level of cardiovascular fitness.