Aerobic exercise beats weights in belly fat face-off
istockphoto
(CBS) Want to burn belly fat? Maybe ditch the weights and lace up those running shoes.
Pictures: 10 easy ways to burn calories this summer
A new study showed aerobic exercise burns nearly 70 percent more calories than resistance weight training.
"Resistance training is great for improving strength and increasing lean body mass," study author Dr. Cris Slentz, an exercise physiologist at Duke University, said in a written statement. "But if you are overweight, which two thirds of the population is, and you want to lose belly fat, aerobic exercise is the better choice because it burns more calories,"
For the eight-month study - published in the August 25 issue of the American Journal of Physiology -196 overweight and sedentary adults, ages 18 to 70, did aerobic training, resistance training, or a combination of the two. Study participants weren't allowed to slack - aerobic exercisers had to jog 12 miles per week at 80 percent of their maximum heart rate, and resistance trainers had to lift weights for 8-12 reps, three times a week.
What happened? By study's end, the joggers had improved insulin resistance and levels of liver enzymes and triglycerides, which are tied to a lower risk for diabetes and heart disease. They also sported less belly fat.
Belly fat doesn't just look bad. Also known as visceral fat, belly fat fills the spaces between organs, and too much of it is associated with heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
"When it comes to increased health risks, where fat is deposited in the body is more important than how much fat you have," Slentz said.
Don't feel up to running 12 miles a week?
Slentz said what really counts is whatever it takes to lose calories, adding, "If you choose to work at a lower aerobic intensity, it will simply take longer to burn the same amount of unhealthy fat."
WebMD has more on aerobic fitness.
Popular in Health
- "Goo" from naked mole rat may protect against cancer
- Parkinson's disease groups offended by Kanye West lyric
- Natura Pet Products recalls dry foods over salmonella
- Skin cancer self-exam: What to look for (PHOTOS)
- CDC: HPV vaccine reduced disease rates in teen girls 56%
- Obesity's "disease" risk no secret despite new classification
- Japanese "eyeball licking" trend carries blindness risk
- A test for throat cancer caused by HPV?
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- %80 maximum heart rate is really fast jogging. Sprinting more like it? Interval training is absolutely the best way to lose weight (alongside a proper diet.) Sprinting in bursts has proven time and time again to be the most effective way to increase your metabolism even long after you've stopped running.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- As Dr. Atkins once said "to stay fat count calories, to stay flat count carbs" and he was right. Exercise can help keep you fit, but it won't do much for your waistline. Start the day with bacon & eggs or steak with butter not cereal, skim milk, toast and a glass of sugary OJ! Check out the book "good calories and bad calories" or "Fat Head" the movie. "Calories in -- calories out" is legacy now, it's a dead issue.
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- I'm curious about which lifts and weights were used, and what these people were eating. Nutrtion tends to trump exercise- "you can't out-train a bad diet."
- reply
- linkicon reporticon emailicon
- You would think that researchers would be up to date and understand calories don't have the meaning or importance we once thought they had. Getting lean is not about how many "calories" you burn. And comparing running 12 miles per week, at 80% to 8-12 reps (with no specific effort %)of resistance training per week makes no sense. The running at 80% is probably closer to anaerobic training than their resistance training group working with an unspecified load. Lovely.
- reply












