A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Aerobic
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old March 5th 08, 05:26 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Elflord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisał(a):


Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.

This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?


Take a look at this:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527


They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).


In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."

The idea is that it's possible to make gains from strength training without
hypertrophy.


That's obvious, but the whole line of thought seems vary crazy to me.
It's like those supplements they sell, where they show that it is used
somewhere during building muscles, so if you take it you get bigger
muscles. Equally far fetched reasoning.


I'm not going to try to argue that it's intuitive (-; It's quite surprising
that strength training would be of much use to endurance athletes, given the
variables of interest (economy, LT, VO2 max)

Pace for an all-out endurance run consists of two factors -- how fast you can move
oxygen around (VO2), and how much distance you can cover per unit oxygen (running
economy). Strength training has been shown to improve the latter in trained endurance
athletes, but not the former.


I found this stuff.
http://www.hpc.otago.ac.nz/resources...ain-review.pdf

Does it summarize current knowledge well enough, or something new popped
up?


I can't speak for the global pool of current knowledge, but it looks consistent with
what I've read on the subject.

As for now, I simply can't believe it. Literally. But I may be wrong.


Sure, it's counter-intuitive.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
  #62  
Old March 5th 08, 12:52 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Homer Simpson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?


"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Dnia 2008-03-05 Homer Simpson napisał(a):

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-04, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
We train with weights to build muscles.

Who's "we" ? If you're a competitive cyclist or endurance athlete,
you
probably
are not lifting weights to bulk up.

Of course you do.

Of course you don't. Lighter is faster. You don't want to build mass.

Of course you want to build mass. Or, to put it differently, you want
to have as much needed muscles as possible at as low body weight as
possible. Usually it means stimulating muscle mass gains.

Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular
efficiency.

This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?

If you're a bodybuilder, that may be so.

Otherwise you build pure strength, which allows you to lift a barbell
once?

It also allows you to run or cycle more efficiently.

Is somebody able to even hint at proving that thing (I'm not sure it
deserves to be called a hypothesis)?


Its not hypothesis..it is fact.
Here are some websites where you can read up on it.
http://www.shapeyou.com/weights_first.html


You don't even know what I was asking about.

http://www.familiesonlinemagazine.co...loss/32830.php
http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Foru...ML/000734.html
http://www.fit1on1.com/fithome/article2.html
http://www.wholefitness.com/basicworkout.html
http://www.delimaworkout.com/FAQ/index.html
When I typed in Cardio before weights I came up with this
http://www.bodybuilding-tips.net/s20/t7811.html


--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R


That would be my fault. I got lost in the conversation here. It changed from
whether to do cardio before or after resistance training to strength
training as it applies to endurance sports.

In that area, extra strength is definately useful to the cyclist. But with
my experience in running I think VO2 uptake is more important than strength.

I apologize for my misunderstanding.


  #63  
Old March 5th 08, 03:56 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Elflord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

You mean that you've shown, that training weights first and then doing a
jog is much more specific? When it happened?


No, neither of them are specific to a sprint-finish.

Ok, but you need to have some grounds for arguing that weights after a ride does
more to improve performance than a reasonable control condition (for example, weights
at any other time of the day).


I didn't claim anything like it in the first place.


You said that weights after a ride is "like" a sprint finish at the end of the race. I
guess it's not clear what you meant by "like", because they are not at all similar. I
think you made that point half in-jest, and probably shouldn't have stuck to it.

Honestly, I doubt it. Squats are scary, riding a pushbike at the top
of your current ability isn't, for whatever reason. Excluding riding
downhill in the mountains, of course. ;-)


Interval workouts are pretty scary ...

But how you stand up to your peers is a better measure of your readiness for the
next race. When you race, you race against people, not the clock.


Still, my argument stands.


What is your argument ? That an objective standard is more objective ? That maybe so,
but it isn't necessarily better prep for racing.

You mean, that people who train with weights before endurance session
would show measurably better performance in endurance sports then those
who train with weights after a jog?


Equal or better.

But my point is that the usual argument for doing endurance first e.g.
"do the more important activity first", because you get "more stimulus",
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Neither does this unusual (never heard it elsewhere) claim that doing weights after
a low intensity endurance workout simulates a sprint finish at the end of a moderate
to high intensity race.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
  #64  
Old March 5th 08, 04:11 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Andrzej Rosa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,359
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-04 Elflord napisał(a):

Weight training for endurance athletes is largely about neuromuscular efficiency.

This sounds as much a nonsense as anything I read today, but maybe I'm
the stupid one here, so could you elaborate?

Take a look at this:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527


They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).


In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."


They say so, but data they gathered say that times in C group increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527/F2

Roughly by the same amount too. If increase of times in control group
is insignificant so is decrease in studied group.

That's obvious, but the whole line of thought seems vary crazy to me.
It's like those supplements they sell, where they show that it is used
somewhere during building muscles, so if you take it you get bigger
muscles. Equally far fetched reasoning.


I'm not going to try to argue that it's intuitive (-; It's quite surprising
that strength training would be of much use to endurance athletes, given the
variables of interest (economy, LT, VO2 max)


So you'd need quality data supporting such an outlandish claim, wouldn't
you?

Pace for an all-out endurance run consists of two factors -- how fast you can move
oxygen around (VO2), and how much distance you can cover per unit oxygen (running
economy). Strength training has been shown to improve the latter in trained endurance
athletes, but not the former.


I found this stuff.
http://www.hpc.otago.ac.nz/resources...ain-review.pdf

Does it summarize current knowledge well enough, or something new popped
up?


I can't speak for the global pool of current knowledge, but it looks consistent with
what I've read on the subject.

As for now, I simply can't believe it. Literally. But I may be wrong.


Sure, it's counter-intuitive.


Not just that. Take a look at by how much the _primary_ factors would
change in such a short training period. If you test people on exercises
they don't regularly do, the change of strength would be fairly
modest, especially if subjects only supplement their training with
weights and don't do full blown resistance training. Now, could you
distinguish between two random groups of people where one does explosive
training and the other does circuit training? Not easily, at best.
Both would increase their strength and explosive power, just by
differing amounts, and this difference would be pretty damn hard to see
in a double blind study. But it doesn't stop the authors of this paper
from putting a nice table where various training regimens are supposedly
giving nice and clear differences. I hardly buy it.

In the first link you can "see" something, but is it a double blind trial?
Absolutely and definitely not. Do they even mention the possibility of
placebo effect? Let me check... Nope.

So now we have an outlandish claim with fairly weak data supporting it,
which are misreported (change in E, no change in C) and the most
probable explanation for any measured difference is omitted in
discussion, to top it all.

It doesn't look entirely convincing to me.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
  #65  
Old March 5th 08, 05:15 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Elflord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).


In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."


They say so, but data they gathered say that times in C group increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527/F2


You said "they don't know if running economy changed". I was addressing that claim.
Running economy did change, so your claim is incorrect.

Roughly by the same amount too. If increase of times in control group
is insignificant so is decrease in studied group.


No. The C group increased by about 10 seconds, the E group decreased by about 30 (the
C group drops in the first part which offsets the subsequent increase).

But that's orthogonal to my point -- that running economy changed.

I'm not going to try to argue that it's intuitive (-; It's quite surprising
that strength training would be of much use to endurance athletes, given the
variables of interest (economy, LT, VO2 max)


So you'd need quality data supporting such an outlandish claim, wouldn't
you?


Sure.

Not just that. Take a look at by how much the _primary_ factors would
change in such a short training period. If you test people on exercises
they don't regularly do, the change of strength would be fairly
modest, especially if subjects only supplement their training with
weights and don't do full blown resistance training. Now, could you


No, they would get rapid "beginner gains".

distinguish between two random groups of people where one does explosive
training and the other does circuit training? Not easily, at best.


It's quite possible that there would be differences, because the training
regimens are different enough that it's difficult to do a fair comparison
of them.

Both would increase their strength and explosive power, just by
differing amounts, and this difference would be pretty damn hard to see
in a double blind study. But it doesn't stop the authors of this paper
from putting a nice table where various training regimens are supposedly
giving nice and clear differences. I hardly buy it.


If a study doesn't demonstrate a significant effect, that doesn't mean that
the training didn't do anything. It means that the effect wasn't large enough
to reach statistical significance.

This is hardly surprising given the difficulty in recruiting large pools of
fit subjects. In the 5k runners paper, they only got P0.05 out of a 30 second
improvement in 5k times (that is a huge drop, considering that these guys
were already pretty decent runners)

So now we have an outlandish claim with fairly weak data supporting it,
which are misreported (change in E, no change in C) and the most


I think your claim that the data are "misreported" is just silly. I suggest you
contact the authors if you find an error in the paper, but I don't think you've
found one here.

probable explanation for any measured difference is omitted in
discussion, to top it all.


And what is this "most probable explanation" ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord
  #66  
Old March 6th 08, 03:45 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Andrzej Rosa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,359
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).

In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."


They say so, but data they gathered say that times in C group increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527/F2


You said "they don't know if running economy changed". I was addressing that claim.
Running economy did change, so your claim is incorrect.


But they still are not sure about it. Otherwise they wouldn't write
about possible explanations in the Discussion. They write that data
suggest, and all that "I'm not sure if my data are good." stuff.

Roughly by the same amount too. If increase of times in control group
is insignificant so is decrease in studied group.


No. The C group increased by about 10 seconds, the E group decreased by about 30 (the
C group drops in the first part which offsets the subsequent increase).

But that's orthogonal to my point -- that running economy changed.


And that's orthogonal to my point, that researchers don't know it for
the fact. You don't write "Another possible mechanism for the
improvement in the 5-km running performance seemed to be related to RE."
if you are sure.

[...]
So now we have an outlandish claim with fairly weak data supporting it,
which are misreported (change in E, no change in C) and the most


I think your claim that the data are "misreported" is just silly. I suggest you
contact the authors if you find an error in the paper, but I don't think you've
found one here.


Times in one group go up, in the other they go down. By roughly the
same amount too. Even if a change in E group is twice bigger than in C
group, it still is roughly the same amount if compared with total time.
We are talking about one percent here, two percents there.

probable explanation for any measured difference is omitted in
discussion, to top it all.


And what is this "most probable explanation" ?


Placebo effect. You always control for it when testing pills, but not
when testing training methodologies. The practicalities make it
difficult to exclude it, but it doesn't mean that it works only for
pills.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
  #67  
Old March 6th 08, 04:06 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Andrzej Rosa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,359
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

Ok, but you need to have some grounds for arguing that weights after a ride does
more to improve performance than a reasonable control condition (for example, weights
at any other time of the day).


I didn't claim anything like it in the first place.


You said that weights after a ride is "like" a sprint finish at the end of the race.


I never claimed that separate sessions would work worse. Actually I
wrote otherwise.

I
guess it's not clear what you meant by "like", because they are not at all similar. I
think you made that point half in-jest, and probably shouldn't have stuck to it.


I wasn't kidding when showing similarities and you didn't convince me
that obvious differences make those similarities disappear. But I
really wouldn't discuss it with you. You seem to have the wrong kind of
personality to make rough comparisons - am I right? ;-)

Honestly, I doubt it. Squats are scary, riding a pushbike at the top
of your current ability isn't, for whatever reason. Excluding riding
downhill in the mountains, of course. ;-)


Interval workouts are pretty scary ...


That's true.

[...]
You mean, that people who train with weights before endurance session
would show measurably better performance in endurance sports then those
who train with weights after a jog?


Equal or better.

But my point is that the usual argument for doing endurance first e.g.
"do the more important activity first", because you get "more stimulus",
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


You have two groups. One trains cardio then weights, the other trains
weights then cardio. What kind of differences you expect that those
groups will show after a while?

I expect that weights first group will gain strength faster, cardio
group will improve their VO2max faster. I'm talking real life here,
where people try to force themselves to work hard. But what's your
guess?

Neither does this unusual (never heard it elsewhere) claim that doing weights after
a low intensity endurance workout simulates a sprint finish at the end of a moderate
to high intensity race.


I just made it up. It's an argument which can be made and defended. I
wouldn't be surprised if some people were actually trained for this IRL.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
  #68  
Old March 6th 08, 04:22 AM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Andrzej Rosa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,359
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

Dnia 2008-03-05 Homer Simpson napisał(a):

That would be my fault. I got lost in the conversation here. It changed from
whether to do cardio before or after resistance training to strength
training as it applies to endurance sports.

In that area, extra strength is definately useful to the cyclist. But with
my experience in running I think VO2 uptake is more important than strength.


They don't say that strength has anything to do with it. Running
economy is supposedly what it's at. VO2max obviously is crucial, but
you can't improve it in experienced runners.

I apologize for my misunderstanding.


What's wrong with you? "That would be my fault"? "I apologize"? You
don't do stuff like that on the net! ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
  #69  
Old March 6th 08, 02:36 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Elflord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-06, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

But my point is that the usual argument for doing endurance first e.g.
"do the more important activity first", because you get "more stimulus",
doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


You have two groups. One trains cardio then weights, the other trains
weights then cardio. What kind of differences you expect that those
groups will show after a while?

I expect that weights first group will gain strength faster, cardio
group will improve their VO2max faster. I'm talking real life here,
where people try to force themselves to work hard. But what's your
guess?


My guess is that you don't have a very good understanding of "real life"
endurance athletes. Endurance athletes do not "force themselves to work hard"
during recovery workouts.

My proposal would be to do as the "sample program" I posted earlier suggests.

I just made it up. It's an argument which can be made and defended. I


I don't think you've made the case that it's any more relevant than (for example)
playing cards after a run. You need to make the case that there is some similarity
for it to be so much as plausible. It's not enough that you're unconvinced by my
argument that they're different.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
  #70  
Old March 6th 08, 03:00 PM posted to misc.fitness.weights,rec.running,misc.fitness.aerobic,alt.support.diet
Elflord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss?

On 2008-03-06, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
Dnia 2008-03-05 Elflord napisał(a):
On 2008-03-05, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
They don't know if running economy changed. They suspect it (which
seems crazy, actually).

In the abstract, they say:

"The 5K time, RE, and VMART improved (P 0.05) in E, but no changes were observed
in C."

They say so, but data they gathered say that times in C group increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/86/5/1527/F2


You said "they don't know if running economy changed". I was addressing that claim.
Running economy did change, so your claim is incorrect.


But they still are not sure about it. Otherwise they wouldn't write
about possible explanations in the Discussion. They write that data
suggest, and all that "I'm not sure if my data are good." stuff.


No, they are sure *that RE improved*.

Roughly by the same amount too. If increase of times in control group
is insignificant so is decrease in studied group.


No. The C group increased by about 10 seconds, the E group decreased by about 30 (the
C group drops in the first part which offsets the subsequent increase).

But that's orthogonal to my point -- that running economy changed.


And that's orthogonal to my point, that researchers don't know it for
the fact. You don't write "Another possible mechanism for the
improvement in the 5-km running performance seemed to be related to RE."
if you are sure.


That doesn't say that they're not sure that RE improved. They are hedging their
bets on RE being *the cause* of improvement in 5k time, because they didn't measure
RE at 5k race pace.

I'll simply note that they measured it at a pretty good clip (around 6:20 a mile)
and my experience as a runner tells me that this is probably good enough.

Times in one group go up, in the other they go down. By roughly the
same amount too. Even if a change in E group is twice bigger than in C
group, it still is roughly the same amount if compared with total time.


Double the effect size can potentially make the difference beteen P 0.01
(very significant) and P 0.05 (not good enough for a scientific paper). As
far as inferential statistics are concerned, they are not "roughly the same
amount" at all.

Placebo effect. You always control for it when testing pills, but not


First, the placebo effect doesn't account for running economy and ground contact
time differences.

Second, in my opinion a placebo effect is not going to lower anyone's 5k time by
30 seconds.

Third, both groups did some sort of "special" training program -- both groups did
*some* explosive strength and circuit training, so if the researchers did this
right, the "control" group should have enjoyed the placebo effect too.

Cheers,
--
Elflord
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does weight lifting or cardio exercises speed weight loss? [email protected] Weights 78 March 8th 08 01:55 PM
Fat loss through weight lifting and no cardio possible? [email protected] Weights 14 September 9th 06 11:12 PM
No weight lifting exercises. [email protected] Weights 6 February 23rd 05 07:13 PM
Cardio, weight-lifting & fasting glucose levels bo Weights 1 October 27th 04 08:23 PM
Weight-lifting for weight-loss Peter Gibbons Weights 22 July 23rd 03 08:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.