Dr. Squat - Dr. Fred Hatfield

Check out High Intesity Interval Training (HIIT) such as the Tabata protocol.

Try this link as a start.

http://charlespoliquin.com/members/modules.php?name=News&file=categories...

consider fish oil/flaxseed supplement and glucosamine sulfate, both of which will help your joints. spend the extra bucks and get the good stuff though if you decide to pursue.

by "bodybuilding routine" do you mean slow and rhythmic repetitions? if so, continue to use this as a base in your mesocycle of your periodization plan, but as you move on, try to incorporate the "CAT" method more often. takes some time to master (I'm not there yet), but it is simple in and of itself. the term was actually coined by our very own Dr. Squat...yes, he knows a thing or two!! if you want more information about the supplements or what CAT is, just google them.

DOC, WE ARE ALL MISSING THE SITE ARTICLES AND INFO MY FRIEND!!!

Concerning your first point. No evidence sugest that this is in anyway more beneficial for heart health/function than weight training for the roughly the same amount of time/intenisty. Nor is it necessary more or even as beneficial as merely leading an active lifestyle. Those are typical ACSM numbers, but they simply don't take into account the fact that exercise (regardless of the type) is beneficial to the heart and that a specific amount of aerobic exercise is in no way needed for optimal cardiovascular health/function.

As for cardio being better at burning off fat. No way! A properly designed weight training program designed to increase training volume and density over time along with an effective diet and supplment scheme are at least twice as effective at obtaining optimal body composition changes in any given amount of time.

And as for doing something long term that one can enjoy...one will be able to continue some form of resistance training much later into life that most will be able to continue any but the least intense level of aerobic work.

I wouldn't bet on that - you take a take an average man and have him cycle (bike) moderate to high intensity for 3 hours a day 5 days a week vs lift for the same number of sessions and durations over a given timeframe you will see the weight drop off the high cardio component workout over the lifting routine.

### Probably because few people are capable of lifting at any respectable intensity for 3 hours a day 5 days a week. However low intensity aerobic work is possible (if anything but practical) for that amount of time. Regardless, 4 hours a week total of proper weight training would work far better.

That’s just common sense, no need to refer to any studies,

### Seriosuly? First off, you're stating something rather extreme, but secondly, research nor empirical evidence supports the notion.

and easily reproducible in effect over a large pool of participants. Provided the diets are the same the amount of calories expended by the cardio participant will be well above the lifter

### Incorrect! This is a common misconception from someone advocating aerobic work for fat loss. They corrrectly observe and/or infer that during the workout, the aerobic exerciser will burn more fat. However, you fail to consider the A) the amount of fat bruned isn't very significant, and that B) Weight training, interval training (i.e., anaerobic work), etc. causes a greater energy demand based on the recovery process. In addition, increased muscle mass from anaerobic work increases resting metabolic rate which will burn more calories and therefore fat throughout the day.

(yeah sure someone who lifts squats 800lbs may expend a lot of calories per lift, but that person is also likely to have a high calorie diet – and in any event falls outside what would be “normal”)..

I would also be suspect about the claim of "heart fitness" being comparable between someone who only lifts (or primarily lifts) and someone who has a moderate to high cardio exercise program.

### On what basis? WHat intricacy of aerobic work has a greater positive effect than anaerobic work and what is this supposed positive effect?

I have seen a lot of hardcore lifters (competitive and not) who crater aerobically after riding a stationary bike for only15-20 minutes, which shows a low sustained cardio output ability (not surprising though, as they are focused on their specific discipline lifting, which they excel at).

### And this indicates cardiovascular health in what way? Aerobic fitness, and cardiovascular health are not synonomous!

The reality is if you want to lose weight in the most efficient manner in a given period of time or increase your "heart fitness" you need a cardio component.

### 100% incorrect. It is the least effective. See the studies I have provided below that corroborate scores of empirical evidence from athletes and coaches around the world from the past 40 years.

Not that there is anything wrong with strength training, with the proper mix between cardio and strength training components your overall fitness (if you are using a variety of measurements) is going to be better,

### Please give reasoning as to why "cardio" will make it better. However, please distinguish your terms. Anaerobic work has a clear benefit to cardiovascular health (unless you would like to disagree with tthat statement, which I will provide bountiful evidence to the contrary). Therefore it is as much "cardio" as aerobic work.

body weight is going to be more stable, and the participants are more likely to stick with a more diverse range of exercises.

### List the "diverse range" of aerobic exercises. I can name more squat variations. There is an infinitely more diverse range of exercises available for the anaerobic (e.g., weight training) exerciser than there are aerobic exercise variations.

"one will be able to continue some form of resistance training much later into life that most will be able to continue any but the least intense level of aerobic work."

Except those 70 year olds are splashing in a pool doing pool "jazzercise" with paddles for resistance in the water - while getting a cardio workout. The average 70 year old is doing strength training about as intensely as they are doing cardio - which is at a pretty low intensity level.

### That's my point, they will be able to perform resistance work at a higher relative intensity as they get older. WHether they have continued resistance training or begin it. Have you worked with this population before? I've seen 70 year olds in cardiac rehab that could walk on a treadmill for 10 minutes but who could perform various weight training movements with up to 50-100 pounds of resistance.

Most senior citizens are focused much more on activities that are related aerobic activity than they are to do with anaerobic activity - and they get a more effective workout all things considered (based on age and the aging process).

### Name them! Unless it's walking, they don't! As 90% or more of all of life's activities, sports, etc. are largely anaerobic.

See these relavant studies:

Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Feb;51(2):153-7. Related Articles, Links

Effect of intensity of physical activity on body fatness and fat distribution.

Tremblay A, Despres JP, Leblanc C, Craig CL, Ferris B, Stephens T, Bouchard C.

Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

To evaluate the effect of intensity of physical activity on body fatness and fat distribution, observations of 1366 women and 1257 men who participated in the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey were analyzed. Subjects were tested for energy expenditure of leisure-time activities and estimated maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), body fatness was measured by subcutaneous skinfold thicknesses, and anthropometric measurements were made. Subjects of both sexes were categorized into four subgroups on the basis of their participation in leisure-time activities of various intensities. In general, subjects practicing vigorous activities on a regular basis had lower subcutaneous skinfold thicknesses and waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs) than those not performing these activities. These differences remained statistically significant after a covariance analysis was used to remove the effect of total energy expenditure of leisure-time activities on subcutaneous fat and fat distribution. Moreover, the WHR remained significantly lower in subjects performing high-intensity exercise after the effect of subcutaneous fat on fat distribution was adjusted for.

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness.

Yoshioka M, Doucet E, St-Pierre S, Almeras N, Richard D, Labrie A, Despres JP, Bouchard C, Tremblay A.

Division of Kinesiology, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted to assess the potential of an increase in exercise intensity to alter energy and lipid metabolism and body fatness under conditions mimicking real life. METHODS: Study 1 was based on the comparison of adiposity markers obtained in 352 male healthy adults who participated in the Quebec Family Study who either regularly participated in high-intensity physical activities or did not. Study 2 was designed to determine the effects of high-intensity exercise on post-exercise post-prandial energy and lipid metabolism as well as the contribution of beta-adrenergic stimulation to such differences under a real-life setting. RESULTS: Results from Study 1 showed that men who regularly take part in intense physical activities display lower fat percentage and subcutaneous adiposity than men who never perform such activities, and this was true even if the latter group reported a lower energy intake (917 kJ/day, P<0.05). In Study 2, the high-intensity exercise stimulus produced a greater post-exercise post-prandial oxygen consumption as well as fat oxidation than the resting session, an effect which disappeared with the addition of propranolol. In addition, the increase in post-prandial oxygen consumption observed after the high-intensity exercise session was also significantly greater than that promoted by the low-intensity exercise session. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that high-intensity exercise favors a lesser body fat deposition which might be related to an increase in post-exercise energy metabolism that is mediated by beta-adrenergic stimulation.

Physiol Behav. 1995 May;57(5):995-1000. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Exercise and energy intake: effect of substrate oxidation.

Almeras N, Lavallee N, Despres JP, Bouchard C, Tremblay A.

Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy Quebec, Canada.

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of exercise-induced alteration in fat oxidation on postexercise spontaneous energy and macronutrient intakes. Eleven young males were submitted to two randomly assigned sessions of 48 h each, during which they were requested to eat in the laboratory. One of these sessions was preceded by a 90-min exercise bout at an intensity of 60% VO2max. During both sessions, subjects ate ad lib food with a fat content conforming to the recommendations of nutrition agencies with a food quotient (FQ) > or = 0.85. Results showed that there was no significant change in postexercise energy and macronutrient intakes in comparison with the sedentary session. However, when subjects were subdivided into two groups on the basis of the respiratory quotient (RQ) measured during exercise, men with a low RQ (high fat oxidation) were characterized by a reduced postexercise increase in energy intake relative to the energy cost of exercise (ECE), i.e., they were more predisposed to be in negative postexercise energy balance compared to those exhibiting a high RQ. Accordingly, exercise RQ was positively associated with postexercise energy and lipid balance. These results show that postexercise energy balance partly depends on the composition of the substrate mix oxidized during exercise.

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness.

Yoshioka M, Doucet E, St-Pierre S, Almeras N, Richard D, Labrie A, Despres JP, Bouchard C, Tremblay A.

Division of Kinesiology, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted to assess the potential of an increase in exercise intensity to alter energy and lipid metabolism and body fatness under conditions mimicking real life. METHODS: Study 1 was based on the comparison of adiposity markers obtained in 352 male healthy adults who participated in the Quebec Family Study who either regularly participated in high-intensity physical activities or did not. Study 2 was designed to determine the effects of high-intensity exercise on post-exercise post-prandial energy and lipid metabolism as well as the contribution of beta-adrenergic stimulation to such differences under a real-life setting. RESULTS: Results from Study 1 showed that men who regularly take part in intense physical activities display lower fat percentage and subcutaneous adiposity than men who never perform such activities, and this was true even if the latter group reported a lower energy intake (917 kJ/day, P<0.05). In Study 2, the high-intensity exercise stimulus produced a greater post-exercise post-prandial oxygen consumption as well as fat oxidation than the resting session, an effect which disappeared with the addition of propranolol. In addition, the increase in post-prandial oxygen consumption observed after the high-intensity exercise session was also significantly greater than that promoted by the low-intensity exercise session. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that high-intensity exercise favors a lesser body fat deposition which might be related to an increase in post-exercise energy metabolism that is mediated by beta-adrenergic stimulation.

cg2000 - I think you just got owned.

(Ok, I'm mainly posting to see if my new avatar works, but you got owned.)

Todd, to keep a short and simple reply, it seems you misunderstood my writings so I wanted to clear things up and in addition make an other point. I never used the words better or optimal in my writings and I actually agree with you on all said.

### You stated: "Obviously if you want to work your heart more to make it stronger or try to burn off some fat faster more cardio is going to be better." That was essentially what I was referring to.

The other point I wanted to make is that while weight training for example does work the cardiovascular system including the heart there are other activities that work a lot better

### Such as? To what degree? And how did/do you determine it is better?

and it is in my opinion that it is important to have a strong heart. Take a marathon runner for example. From what I hear their resting heart rates are generally lower than average.

### So is the average weight trainer.

That's because their hearts are a lot stronger and they can pump more blood per beet. Also to support my opinion a bit, when was the last time you heard of someone dying because their muscles or bones weren't strone enough?

### It happens everyday. Do you know how many people suffer from conditions that if they were simply stronger they would be able to perform exercise. Wal-Mart will soon have more scooters than shopping carts for fat people who do not have the physical strength to stand and walk around for the 20-40 minutes it takes to go shopping. In cardiac rehab situations, there are plenty of patients that lack the physical strength to perform any type of aerobic work. Strength is the foundation of all strength qualities. Squatting 400 pounds isn't, but without adequate skeletal muscle strength, discussion of any other form of exercise is mute.

### The other point you make about stroke volume which is what you are actually talking about is not indicative of a healthier heart, it's indicative of an aerobically trained heart. Now, stroke volume can't be too low, but it is improved via resistance work as well. However, it is not increased past a certain point as it perpetually is in aerobic training. In other words, just as it is not beneficial from a purely health stand point to be able to squat 400 pounds, it is not beneficial from a health standpoint to continually improve VO2 max, stroke volume, to continually lower heart rate, etc. There becomes a point of diminishing returns from a health benefit, and from said health standpoint...accepted standards of good cardiovascular health/function can all, easily be obtained with zero aerobic work, and potentially improved even further as argued by Dr. Mel Siff, in his "Facts and Fallacies of Fitness."

It's probably a rare thing while it is more often that you hear of someone dying of a heart problem.

### But heart problems are the end result of countless other factors. However, one of the most prevalent is obesity. Anaerobic activity, and especially resistance training is most effective at preventing and correcting obseity. You cut out obesity and you cut out a large portion of all heart conditions that are not genetic.

I guess it's all up to the individual what their fitness goals are. Personally I am currently a not competitive athlete and while I love weight training the most, I am also making it a point to throw in some extra cardio to strengthen my heart; a few of my family members died of heart problems and my father is currently sick. For that reason I am also trying to improve on my diet so the same thing doesn't happen to me. I wouldn't mind some day when I am done with college competing in some sort of strength sport such as strong man or powerlifting, but even then I would still try to throw in a few extra cardio sessions.

### Well, why? how is it going to benefit you?

Thanks for the posts, your knowlege and input is always greatly appritiated![/i]

I always thought that adding a few cardio sessions in addition to my weight training would be benefitial to my overall health, but if this is false I would certainly like to know. Am I wrong? Does it only serve as waisted time in the gym? On my off days from lifting would I be better off sitting around being lazy and doing nothing as opposed to going to the gym and getting my heart rate up for a little while?

"The argument about cardio vs. weight training has to stop here. It isn't one or the other"

Dr. Squat, with that I agree completely.

You aren't going to get one without the other in complete isolation, and using them in conjuction will enhance effectiveness. IMO arguing against the effectiveness of cardio (aerobic) is foolish (in this case the effectiveness of cardio in fat burning), as would be ignoring the benefits of weight training (maintaining lean muscle mass, and increasing the metabolic rate in this case).

I wouldn't bet on that - you take a take an average man and have him cycle (bike) moderate to high intensity for 3 hours a day 5 days a week vs lift for the same number of sessions and durations over a given timeframe you will see the weight drop off the high cardio component workout over the lifting routine.

biking at a moderate to high intesity 5x/week for 3 hrs per day ... for the AVERAGE man??! :shock:

And yes actually I have worked with older adults and most do not weight training - weight training in and of itself is a is an ineffective way for 70 year old to exercise, exercise based on first with a cardiovascular emphasis and secondarily with a focus to resistance training is preferable (understanding that most exercise will be at most at a low to moderate level at any rate). Again 70 year olds focusing primarily on weight training for fitness – that discussion is a non-starter, talk to any MD or any 70 year old and they will explain the obvious problems with that approach.

And what is wrong with 70 year old people weight training?? The benefits of weight training as you age are too numerous to list...

I can say with 100% certainty that I’ve NEVER met someone who trains 5 days a week for 3 hours at a pop. Now, I don’t hang with professional athletes too often, so that might put me in the minority on the board.

The question for me is, ‘what can I do to most effectively improve the body composition in the time I have to train?’ I think a reasonable amount of training for the average person is 45-90 minutes/ 4 days a week, with the operative term being ‘average person’.

Now I don’t claim to know as much as anyone else here, but I do know that the best way to achieve this goal in the long run is to increase my lean body mass. This is done through resistance training and diet. Extensive aerobic work might help drop some weight quicker, but it’s counter productive to establishing lean body mass. I only have so much time, and I’m not going to spend it burning my lean mass.

I train about as much as indicated above, and do zero aerobic work. (Although if you took my heart rate during my weight training it would be up there pretty high) I keep about 15 extra pounds of lean mass on my frame doing so, which allows me to eat what I want and look/feel better. I’ve went through phases where I took this time each week to run/bike etc. My body feels week, I have to eat much less, and my weight fluctuates considerably. Maintaining a higher level of lean mass over time accomplishes my goals, and I’ve helped a number of people improve their body comp by reducing their aerobic work to increase lean mass.

Well, it's not that it doesn't have potential positive benefit on health per se. But it doesn't have any better or additional benefit than weight training. NO EVIDENCE suggest that any form of exercise, from purely a health standpoint, offers any advantage (based on its effectiveness) over any other form. Therefore if you want to do something good for your heart...lift, go run a marathon, go play tennis, pick up basketball, frisbee...whatever so long as there is some form of activity.

As far as being wasted time in the gym...it can be...performing it post-weight training definitely is, but if it fits with your fitness/athletic needs and goals, then no, it's not.

Your never better off being lazy...do something to sweat everyday.

Again, here's my argument...from a health standpoint, all exercise is beneficial. However, for fat loss, anaerobic training is far more effective than aerobic training. Heart health is benefited by both, and neither is better per se, for the heart.[/b]

You count up the total amount of calories expended in the two different scenarios (which to be clear is 15 hours a week of moderate to high intensity cycling versus 4 hours a week total of weightlifting, and hey lets assume moderate to high intensity) over a set timeframe (oh say 6 weeks) and you come to the mathematically verified answer – weightlifting.

### You didn't read what I said, as I explained that you were making this incorrect assumption. You are not taking into account the effect of the training session. A weight training session (of significant volume and density), has a significant caloric demand in order to recover from it. It's not as simple as who burns more calories in a training session. Furthermore, hormonal changes from a resistance training regimen is more more beneficial. Aerobic athletes have notoriously high levels of cortisol. High cortisol hinders fat burning.

I have no idea how you could validate that idea – good luck with it, the rest of us will stick with the more effective means of burning fat.

### Empirical evidence, corroborated by research.

Its pretty obvious stuff - well we just call it common sense here, but really it is experiential data based on first hand knowledge and spending a lot of time in the gym and with International level athletes in various disciplines, who would giggle at the idea that weightlifting would seriously compare to moderate to high intensity cardio training for losing body fat - over any timeframe.

### Then who are these international level athletes? Look at the physiques of athletes who traditionally perform little to no aerobic work! Gymnasts, weightlifters in the lower weight classes, American football players (other than linemen), etc. they're plenty lean! They don't perform a lot of aerobic work. It's possible if you know what you're doing. This isn't 1975, and the Cooper institute is no longer "THE" authority on exercise science.

“B) Weight training, interval training (i.e., anaerobic work), etc. causes a greater energy demand based on the recovery process. In addition, increased muscle mass from anaerobic work increases resting metabolic rate which will burn more calories and therefore fat throughout the day."

It incrementally increases the resting metabolic rate over time based on the amount of muscle mass you gain. So while you are trying to pack on a few pounds of muscle over a month with weight training to get a fractional increase in resting metabolic rate – the guy who is doing moderate to high cardio has already dropped 10-15 lbs

### Of fat, muscle, or water weight? If you are familiar with aerobic training and it's effects then you know 10 pounds of fluid loss during a session is not uncommon. Secondly, the reason their are no 250 pound ripped triathletes is that aerobic work will in fact rob you of muscle. In addition, gained muscle from resistant work is only one of three components that assist in fat loss. Better hormonal profiles as well as the caloric demands for recovering from the session both factor is. It's quite clear you've never seen the effects of a properly designed weight training program designed to help someone shed fat.

and can then focus on gaining back any lean muscle mass lost which given the timeframe (say 6 weeks) would probably be slight…whoohoo big contest there.

### Or, I could forego the aerobic work, and add muscle while losing fat if I know what I'm doing and not working off of scientific data from the 60's and 70's.

"On what basis? WHat intricacy of aerobic work has a greater positive effect than anaerobic work and what is this supposed positive effect?"

It seems you know how to open a book and do a little research - do any research on moderate aerobic exercise and its effect on heart disease, cardio muscular fitness, longevity - hey search for any number of factors the research as been in place for quite some time and well documented. There is no point in arguing the obvious.

### You didn't get the obvious! I am not arguing that aerobic work does not have positive effect on these conditions. I am arguing that anaerobic work has the same positive effects.

"And this indicates cardiovascular health in what way? Aerobic fitness, and cardiovascular health are not synonomous!"

So you are under the impression that aerobic fitness and cardiovascular health have no direct relationship - are you sure about that?

### Read more carefully, I never insinuated that! I stated that improvement in aerobic fitness does not perpetually improve cardiac health bench marks. Just as improving my squat from 400 to 500 pounds will have no significant impact on my cardiac health, neither will increasing my cycling distance from 100 miles a week to 200 miles a week.

Directly increasing the amount of work (volume of blood pumped) the heart for regular sustained periods (directed aerobic exercise) has no relationship to how strong that muscle is, and its overall health. Are you really trying to argue that?

### No, but you're putting words in my mouth concerning something I never suggested. I am not arguing that aerobic work will not result in cardiac health benefits. I'm arguing that it's the long way around the mountain to fat loss. That's two different things. I begin arguing that is was not as beneficial for fat loss. You have some how read that as aerobic training is bad for the heart or something. I have simply stated that is has no benefit to the cardiovascular system over and above anaerobic training.

Actually you missed the point - in my example I am outlining is that the anaerobic component is secondary to the aerobic (cardiovascular) component. The primary concern is exercising the heart muscle, the secondary focus is resistance training and slowing the loss of other muscle mass.

### You're missing my point. Without a degree of anaerobic fintess (read strength and mobility that can only be obtained in some populations via weight training) aerobic exercise is not possible.

And yes actually I have worked with older adults and most do not weight training

### This is a shame, as no less than 50 papers have come out about the benefit of weight training for the elderly within the last 6 months.

- weight training in and of itself is a is an ineffective way for 70 year old to exercise, exercise based on first with a cardiovascular emphasis and secondarily with a focus to resistance training is preferable (understanding that most exercise will be at most at a low to moderate level at any rate). Again 70 year olds focusing primarily on weight training for fitness – that discussion is a non-starter, talk to any MD or any 70 year old and they will explain the obvious problems with that approach.

### Yeah, well how is a 70 year old with a hip and knee replacement and tendonitis in his shoulders supposed to perform aerobic work? I can put him on a resistance training program that will help all three issues and could perhaps get him to the point where he could do some aerobic exercise such as walking around the block pain free without the use of a cain. Talk to that same MD and ask why resistance training does not produce any cardiac benefit. He can't give you a reason because there isn't one.

So lets see your evidence:

Study 1

"Subjects of both sexes were categorized into four subgroups on the basis of their participation in leisure-time activities of various intensities. In general, subjects practicing vigorous activities on a regular basis had lower subcutaneous skin fold thicknesses and waist-to-hip ratios (WHRs) than those not performing these activities."

People who exercise vigorously have less fat than couch potatoes. Ohh theres a revelation and has nothing germane to add to the discussion. Way to reference...

### Did you read all of it? Apparently not, because those who performed more intense exercise had the best results.

Study 2

"Results from Study 1 showed that men who regularly take part in intense physical activities display lower fat percentage and subcutaneous adiposity than men who never perform such activities, and this was true even if the latter group reported a lower energy intake"

Wow same off topic point from a different study – you are on a roll.

### Actually, you have to read the whole abstract, not just take something out of context and twist it's meaning.

"high-intensity exercise stimulus produced a greater post-exercise post-prandial oxygen consumption as well as fat oxidation than the resting session, an effect which disappeared with the addition of propranolol. In addition, the increase in post-prandial oxygen consumption observed after the high-intensity exercise session was also significantly greater than that promoted by the low-intensity exercise session."

Undefined "intense physical activity" results in fat oxidation (burning) after the fact as compared to undefined "low-intensity exercise session". Very enlightening in relation to our discussion - more exercise better...

### These are abstracts for references purposes, I'm not posting an entire study on the forum. The findings corroborate what I have been saying. The post exercise energy expenditure is greater for anaerobic work, resulting in increased fat loss. Look up the study. That's why I posted it.

Study 3

"Results showed that there was no significant change in postexercise energy and macronutrient intakes in comparison with the sedentary session."

After exercise, people who exercise once, after exercising, show resting energy expenditure as comparable to a couch potatoe. Well good thing they exercised first, hmmm?

### WHy not read all of the paragraph?

"However, when subjects were subdivided into two groups on the basis of the respiratory quotient (RQ) measured during exercise, men with a low RQ (high fat oxidation) were characterized by a reduced postexercise increase in energy intake relative to the energy cost of exercise (ECE)"

So to clarify as per the study: "The main finding of the present study is the absence of postexercise changes in energy expenditure and substrate oxidation when exercise was immediately followed by a snack containing the same amount of energy and nutrient oxidized during the exercise bout. This is probably because of the accelerated replenishment of glycogen stores and recovery of energy balance."

So your point as it directly relates to the discussion of the effectiveness weightlifting (anaerobic) versus cardio (aerobic) in effectively burning (oxidizing) fat is...you want a snack?? I am getting the impression that Google is more of a hindrance than a tool in your demonstrated argumentative ability...

### However, when subjects were subdivided into two groups on the basis of the respiratory quotient (RQ) measured during exercise, men with a low RQ (high fat oxidation) ***READ AEROBIC EXERCISE*** were characterized by a reduced postexercise increase in energy intake relative to the energy cost of exercise (ECE), i.e., they were more predisposed to be in negative postexercise energy balance compared to those exhibiting a high RQ.*****READ ANAEROBIC EXERCISE****Accordingly, exercise RQ was positively associated with postexercise energy and lipid balance. These results show that postexercise energy balance partly depends on the composition of the substrate mix oxidized during exercise.

### I.e., as I have been saying, anaerobic works will cost more calories to recover from than aerobic work and this facilitates greater loss of fat.

Study 4 (this is getting tedious...why am I wasting my time on this..)

### I don't know, in order to gain something from research one has to read it.

"Results from Study 1 showed that men who regularly take part in intense physical activities display lower fat percentage and subcutaneous adiposity than men who never perform such activities"

Great...again coach potatoes vs people who participate in undefined "intense physical activities", shows that the fit guys tend to be less fat - really bangs on the head of the point of discussion.

### You can't read a sentence out of context and base your opinion on it. When you do you come to conclusions that aerobic training is the optimal way to lose fat.

"In Study 2, the high-intensity exercise stimulus produced a greater post-exercise post-prandial oxygen consumption as well as fat oxidation than the resting session, an effect which disappeared with the addition of propranolol. In addition, the increase in post-prandial oxygen consumption observed after the high-intensity exercise session was also significantly greater than that promoted by the low-intensity exercise session."

So "high intensity exercise" increases oxygen consumption, and fat oxidation after a meal unless you take a beta-blocker. - Very useful information in light of the point of discussion.

And further "high intensity exercise" increased oxygen consumption after a meal more than "low intensity exercises" which we can assume might mean a greater percentage of oxydized fat by RQ. Whoooo...there is a earthshaking idea.

### It's the point you've been ignoring.

"These results suggest that high-intensity exercise favors a lesser body fat deposition which might be related to an increase in post-exercise energy metabolism that is mediated by beta-adrenergic stimulation."

So all in all (forgeting the beta-blocker aspect - who cares anyway) unspecified "high intensity exercise" seems to burn fat faster (post exercise after a meal) with those who are have less body fat - wow, now that point is a zinger, it really brings home a point - not a point that directly relates to the discussion at hand but a point...like a floating point...out there among pointless objects...

### If you had read/understood the points I have made it directly relates to the discussion at hand. I have given reasons as to why anaerobic exercise results in greater fat loss. You have denied this, but not given any reasoning other than more calories burned during an aerobic trainin session. As I have explained, that does not take into account the post exercise recovery and further caloric expenditure (addressed in these studies) required from anaerobic work.

So all in all – did you have a point or was the point to just waste my time??

### I made several, but apparently I have wasted mine.

I used to train 2.5 hours 4 to 5 days a week when I was building my base mileage. I'm just a recreational cyclist. A lot of cyclists put in 10+ hours a week. It's not uncommon.