Reply
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Registered User SFT's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: New Hampshire
    Posts: 1,513
    Rep Power: 1631
    SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000)
    SFT is offline

    Missing the boat on exercise and weight loss

    I know this isn't anything new, but after reading a few highly publicized articles about how diet is useless for weight loss, it seems that many people honestly believe this. I've even seen doctors and researchers agree. We certainly can't refute that nutrition plays an important goal in any body composition goals. Every individual responds differently to exercise too. Some people can start exercising three days a week for thirty minutes per session and the weight comes off. Others have to do considerably more with diet changes to see the same progress.

    All these points aside, all of these articles completely ignore the muscle preservation effect of strength training. I'm sure there are plenty examples out there, but I was recently reading a study where diabetics either had a diet only and exercise + diet intervention. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight (as a result of an attempt to keep Calories equal, exercise group ate slightly more), but the exercise group gained ~0.5kg of lean mass, while the diet only group lost ~0.4kg of lean mass. This was with moderate weight loss (~2.2kg), over a short period of time (6 months). With a more aggressive intervention, I'm sure we'd still see quite a bit of muscle preservation, but considerably more loss for the diet only group.

    To someone on the outside, it looks like the results were the same. However, the exercise group actually lost about 41% more fat mass. I don't know about all of these people spreading this bull****, but that sounds pretty good to me. I think that the lean mass preservation effects of exercise are overshadowed by the fact that there are so many other benefits outside of body composition. If any of these morons spent a day in a rehabilitation hospital, they would understand all of these other benefits. When you see a stroke patient, or someone who has just had a CABG, you are reminded of the health benefits of exercise. I understand that these people are just trying to get press, or flex their contrarian muscles, but there are really a lot of people out there that NEED exercise. Adding 3-30 minutes sessions of strength training per week to a diet would not do anything but improve results.

    This post is really nothing more than a rant, but I can't stand to read one more article about how exercise is useless for weight loss.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User ericmackcarter's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Age: 37
    Posts: 400
    Rep Power: 191
    ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10) ericmackcarter is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    ericmackcarter is offline
    5 pounds over 6 months is nothing to celebrate for either intervention. Anyways, perhaps the issue is not that strength training might be important for weight loss, but rather that is might be important for health regardless of weight change.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    Registered User Endevorforever's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 271
    Rep Power: 176
    Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Endevorforever is offline
    Originally Posted by SFT View Post
    I know this isn't anything new, but after reading a few highly publicized articles about how diet is useless for weight loss, it seems that many people honestly believe this. I've even seen doctors and researchers agree. We certainly can't refute that nutrition plays an important goal in any body composition goals. Every individual responds differently to exercise too. Some people can start exercising three days a week for thirty minutes per session and the weight comes off. Others have to do considerably more with diet changes to see the same progress.

    All these points aside, all of these articles completely ignore the muscle preservation effect of strength training. I'm sure there are plenty examples out there, but I was recently reading a study where diabetics either had a diet only and exercise + diet intervention. Both groups lost similar amounts of weight (as a result of an attempt to keep Calories equal, exercise group ate slightly more), but the exercise group gained ~0.5kg of lean mass, while the diet only group lost ~0.4kg of lean mass. This was with moderate weight loss (~2.2kg), over a short period of time (6 months). With a more aggressive intervention, I'm sure we'd still see quite a bit of muscle preservation, but considerably more loss for the diet only group.

    To someone on the outside, it looks like the results were the same. However, the exercise group actually lost about 41% more fat mass. I don't know about all of these people spreading this bull****, but that sounds pretty good to me. I think that the lean mass preservation effects of exercise are overshadowed by the fact that there are so many other benefits outside of body composition. If any of these morons spent a day in a rehabilitation hospital, they would understand all of these other benefits. When you see a stroke patient, or someone who has just had a CABG, you are reminded of the health benefits of exercise. I understand that these people are just trying to get press, or flex their contrarian muscles, but there are really a lot of people out there that NEED exercise. Adding 3-30 minutes sessions of strength training per week to a diet would not do anything but improve results.

    This post is really nothing more than a rant, but I can't stand to read one more article about how exercise is useless for weight loss.
    When you change the study to look at fat loss, it is clear to see the flaws in the study. I think that is why most fitness professionals don't focus on weight as much as body composition. As an industry we need to stop using terms like "weight loss". Fitness professionals need to use body composition and leave "weight loss" up to nutritionist and dietitians.
    NASM (CPT)
    ISSA (CFT)
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    Registered User titusricard's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Location: United States
    Posts: 22
    Rep Power: 0
    titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) titusricard has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    titusricard is offline
    Originally Posted by Endevorforever View Post
    When you change the study to look at fat loss, it is clear to see the flaws in the study. I think that is why most fitness professionals don't focus on weight as much as body composition. As an industry we need to stop using terms like "weight loss". Fitness professionals need to use body composition and leave "weight loss" up to nutritionist and dietitians.
    Well freakin' said!
    Something clever and deep.

    NASM Certified Personal Trainer
    ACE Personal Trainer Certification
    TRX
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User SFT's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: New Hampshire
    Posts: 1,513
    Rep Power: 1631
    SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000)
    SFT is offline
    Originally Posted by ericmackcarter View Post
    5 pounds over 6 months is nothing to celebrate for either intervention. Anyways, perhaps the issue is not that strength training might be important for weight loss, but rather that is might be important for health regardless of weight change.
    As I mentioned, this was not a very aggressive intervention. The subjects were diabetics and the study looked at a variety of other variables including HbA1c, average glucose concentrations, etc.

    I think the point of my post is being missed. Strength training is clearly important for health. However, exercise as a whole really doesn't get any credit when it comes to body composition goals.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    It's Over 9000!!! rdferguson's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2008
    Location: A house on a hill, Australia
    Posts: 6,931
    Rep Power: 18227
    rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) rdferguson is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    rdferguson is offline
    I hear you 148%, SFT. Hypothetically speaking, if two people lose 20lb of bodyweight, one them loses 5lb of muscle and the other gains 5lb of muscle, then the first one has lost 15lb of fat and the other has lost 25lb of fat. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I think I'd rather be the second person out of those options. Besides that, as most of us regularly posting in this section understand, resistance training has significant implications for bone density, ADL's and physical independence, amongst other benefits.

    Incidentally, I was doing some reading earlier today and one of the studies I looked at showed that resistance training may have greater benefits than cardio for controlling blood glucose levels in diabetics.
    SQ 172.5kg. BP 105kg. DL 200kg. OHP 62.5kg @ 67.3kg

    Greg Everett says: "You take someone who's totally sedentary and you can get 'em stronger by making them pick their nose vigorously for an hour a day."

    Sometimes I write things about training: modernstrengthtraining.wordpress.com
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Venison Warrior Footballa_19's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2007
    Location: Idaho, United States
    Age: 35
    Posts: 2,466
    Rep Power: 19169
    Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) Footballa_19 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    Footballa_19 is offline
    Muscle gain = more anabolic metabolism = high basal metabolic rates = more calories burned on a regular basis. This is science. How do we get muscle gain? Although it can be done through diet, most people aren't that disciplined. Exercise is obviously the better choice here. I would slap anyone who calls themselves a professional and tell me different. The problem is most people's perception of "building muscle".
    "There is no one right way, everyone is different"

    -B.S. Pre-Med/Biology from CMU and ex-CMU Wide Receiver
    -NASM CPT, PES, CES
    -Current trainer of elite athletes
    -Future Elite BowHunter and certified Lungcutter

    Official 1st Phorm Ambassador

    https://coachmatt.1stphorm.com/
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Registered User Endevorforever's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 271
    Rep Power: 176
    Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Endevorforever is offline
    Originally Posted by Footballa_19 View Post
    Muscle gain = more anabolic metabolism = high basal metabolic rates = more calories burned on a regular basis. This is science. How do we get muscle gain? Although it can be done through diet, most people aren't that disciplined. Exercise is obviously the better choice here. I would slap anyone who calls themselves a professional and tell me different. The problem is most people's perception of "building muscle".
    This pretty much sums it up. There is a stigma about muscle gain, especially among women and some men, that muscles mean they will turn into bodybuilders.
    NASM (CPT)
    ISSA (CFT)
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Registered User RevolutionFF's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2011
    Posts: 292
    Rep Power: 170
    RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10) RevolutionFF is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    RevolutionFF is offline
    Originally Posted by Endevorforever View Post
    This pretty much sums it up. There is a stigma about muscle gain, especially among women and some men, that muscles mean they will turn into bodybuilders.

    At the very least, muscle retention is what a client should be aiming for during a fat loss phase. Of course, your newbie will possibly gain some muscle and lose some fat at the same time.

    I'm a firm believer in developing all energy systems for your general client. But strength is paramount prior to anything else IMO.

    Nutrition, very important in transforming your body.

    Exercise, very important in transforming your body (to how you desire it to look).

    You need both.
    Tired of boring cardio? Want to add a challenge to your workouts?
    New book available on the Amazon store
    "Cardio Revolution: 54 Fat Loss Finishers - Pack of Cards Workout"

    www.revolutionlifestyles.com

    Online fitness, nutrition and lifestyle coaching.

    Personal training - Wimbledon, SW19.

    Fat Loss | Strength Training
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Registered User SFT's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: New Hampshire
    Posts: 1,513
    Rep Power: 1631
    SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000)
    SFT is offline
    The problem is that we all agree, but there are people out there in various medical fields that don't. Obviously some dietitians have a bias. My father's doctor even told him to focus on diet because strength training was too vigorous for him. He is a 58 year old diabetic, 6'1" 245lbs. (~31 BMI), has hypertension, high cholesterol, and neuropathy. He would certainly be considered a high risk client, but also a perfect candidate for resistance training and exercise in general. I would not want him training with most personal trainers, either someone with a degree and years of experience, or a medically supervised program.

    That being said, this is the perfect example where diet just isn't enough. We put way too much trust in what doctors say. People seem to forget that doctors are wrong quite a bit too, especially regarding topics that they don't study.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    Registered User Endevorforever's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 271
    Rep Power: 176
    Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Endevorforever is offline
    Originally Posted by SFT View Post
    The problem is that we all agree, but there are people out there in various medical fields that don't. Obviously some dietitians have a bias. My father's doctor even told him to focus on diet because strength training was too vigorous for him. He is a 58 year old diabetic, 6'1" 245lbs. (~31 BMI), has hypertension, high cholesterol, and neuropathy. He would certainly be considered a high risk client, but also a perfect candidate for resistance training and exercise in general. I would not want him training with most personal trainers, either someone with a degree and years of experience, or a medically supervised program.

    That being said, this is the perfect example where diet just isn't enough. We put way too much trust in what doctors say. People seem to forget that doctors are wrong quite a bit too, especially regarding topics that they don't study.
    Since when do you need a degree to work with special populations?
    NASM (CPT)
    ISSA (CFT)
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Registered User SFT's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: New Hampshire
    Posts: 1,513
    Rep Power: 1631
    SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000)
    SFT is offline
    Originally Posted by Endevorforever View Post
    Since when do you need a degree to work with special populations?
    You don't need a degree, but I would prefer it if said person was working with a family member that was high risk. Experience is also a factor, but all things equal, I'll go with the person with experience and a degree instead of someone who completed a weekend, or online PT certification. I've spoken to many trainers that work with special populations in the past, but most of them have had success in spite of not knowing what they were doing. Their client could have just as easily had a stroke or other complications.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #13
    Registered User Endevorforever's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2012
    Posts: 271
    Rep Power: 176
    Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10) Endevorforever is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Endevorforever is offline
    Originally Posted by SFT View Post
    You don't need a degree, but I would prefer it if said person was working with a family member that was high risk. Experience is also a factor, but all things equal, I'll go with the person with experience and a degree instead of someone who completed a weekend, or online PT certification. I've spoken to many trainers that work with special populations in the past, but most of them have had success in spite of not knowing what they were doing. Their client could have just as easily had a stroke or other complications.
    So what difference would a degree make? I mean there are specialty certifications/courses that teach you how to work with special populations. What if the guy was a C/D student?
    NASM (CPT)
    ISSA (CFT)
    Reply With Quote

  14. #14
    Registered User SFT's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2005
    Location: New Hampshire
    Posts: 1,513
    Rep Power: 1631
    SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000) SFT is just really nice. (+1000)
    SFT is offline
    Originally Posted by Endevorforever View Post
    So what difference would a degree make? I mean there are specialty certifications/courses that teach you how to work with special populations. What if the guy was a C/D student?
    A degree from a well known school generally guarantees some consistent level of academic training. We all know there are hundreds of certifications out there. You can pass a certification without ever actually working with special populations.

    I'm not saying that a degree guarantees that someone will be a good trainer, or vice versa, but there are more bad trainers without degrees than there are with degrees. Someone with a degree invested 4 years and a decent amount of money. A personal training certification takes no more than a few weeks or months of studying and a small investment. The barrier of entry is very low. That is all that I'm saying.
    Reply With Quote

Similar Threads

  1. A Female Miscer's Journey through Weight Loss
    By KP7 in forum Losing Fat Logs
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 08-17-2009, 05:39 AM
  2. can i lose enough weight by this date?
    By endo_xeno in forum Teen Bodybuilding
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 09:19 PM
  3. Replies: 126
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 01:15 PM
  4. **3 FREE Bottles of Omnibolic(O-Bol)!**
    By SupremeSE in forum Company Promotion
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 03-08-2008, 02:09 PM
  5. circuit training for sports?
    By huskerfreak in forum Sports Training
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-15-2007, 04:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts