Resistance training and fat burning

[banshee]

I was having a discussion with a friend who does a lot of weight lifting, and we were talking about when you start seeing the benefits of resistance exercise. He said that you don't start seeing muscles gains or fat loss until you've been doing regular resistance training for at least two months. He said that for those first two months, your body is basically just working to repair itself, and then it finally says "ok, this isn't a temporary thing, time to grab energy from the fat cells and use it to help build new muscles."

I can believe that it takes two months before you start seeing new muscle being built. We all know that building muscle is a slow process. But I find it a bit hard to believe that it takes that long for the body to start burning more fat as a result of the workouts. Doesn't the body need to use energy/fat stores to do muscle repair work too?

Does anyone know the science behind this? How long does it take the body to kick up the metabolism and start burning more fat in response to resistance training?

[Gaelen]

Banshee, I can't give you science as in a published paper, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that when you do pilates, you begin to see body reshaping results in 21-30 days. Pilates is resistance work, too; either isometric or against cords or bands--and it definitely shows results after about 10 workouts. Figuring one workout every other day, that's much sooner than two months. Are you burning fat? I'd guess yes.

[Ottawa]

Re:"He said that you don't start seeing muscles gains or fat loss until you've been doing regular resistance training for at least two months."

That is quite possible since even with weight loss others don't "see" results until you are approach 10% loss (from previous posts/threads).

Re:"He said that for those first two months, your body is basically just working to repair itself, and then it finally says "ok, this isn't a temporary thing, time to grab energy from the fat cells and use it to help build new muscles."

I don't buy this part. Your body is always working to repair itself especially after strength exercises or work. Your muscles are maximizing repair/new growth 2-3 hours after a strength workout. There is no thinking process going on and you are stretching/tearing new muscle with any major effort in strength training that will require some new growth requiring "fuel". I wonder if he is talking "noticeable" improvement in physique?

Re:"But I find it a bit hard to believe that it takes that long for the body to start burning more fat as a result of the workouts. Doesn't the body need to use energy/fat stores to do muscle repair work too? Does anyone know the science behind this? How long does it take the body to kick up the metabolism and start burning more fat in response to resistance training?"

I don't know all the answers to this but your metabolism increases every time you work out, with maximum calorie burn 2-3 hours after serious strength training when the repair process actually maximizes.
With every increased pound of muscle gained the cost of maintaining is an additional 35 to 50 calories per day (usually marked as 37.5 cals/pound of muscle). There is no way the body is going to wait for this fuel. It has to come from ingested foods, or your body (fat and muscle). We monitor our protein needs for our lean body mass so it has to come from ingested foods or body fat.

There may be another process that kicks in after a longer period of training that I do not know about, but I find it (our bodies) usually does the opposite of what we want it to do since it is working to maintain status quo, and we are forced to change routines/exercises to maximize the metabolic benefit of and strength training.

One of the problems people sometimes face is increased appetite after exercising and losing some of the effect of the workout. I try to always have extra protein after any strength exercises.
I hope this helps and would be interested in other's views.

[hawk]

I can tell you from my own experience. I began a resistance training program the beginning of February. I weighed and measured myself. I had my husband take a picture of me. I took a picture each week. It has been 6 weeks.
Alot of people notice the difference already , but with a bathing suit on I am just now starting to notice the difference in my waist line.

This is my thought. I could be wrong. I began working out and basically I looked like I had a marshmellow waist line . When you lift weights the inside of the muscles begin to get harder and the fat inside those muscles gets squeezed out as they harden up. You do not see the difference for awhile . Once I began to feel like my biceps and triceps and abs were getting hard underneath, then that's when I began to notice the changes on the outside. I can see the ab line on both sides of my stomach now. I can see my triceps now. My biceps are always there but there is more definition. My legs are always worked out but suddenly I notice the definition and can see the muscle lines separating each one in my calves.
It took two months to be able to see it on the outside, I am almost at the end of the 2nd month.
When I put the same bathing suit on and I look in the mirrorI do not see a big difference,except my sides are smaller but when I compare the picture with what I look like , there is a huge difference. I was amazed. I'm glad I took the first picture as embarrassing as it was.
The definition may take a few more weeks to see the ripped look in my upper arms and thighs and the six pack I long for may not show up till summer. I have confidence that it will. I can feel it underneath the padding that is getting thinner by the day. I think I just need to keep working at it and burning off more body fat.
I'm with Ottawa. I think those muscles start tearing and building as soon as you start to work out. It did not take long. It is amazing how fast it happens if you are consistant.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I never like these type of comparisons because we all start at different 'start points'. Having said that, I've read different sources in which any type of exercise intervention (usually to study its effect on health parameters), lasts no less than 16 weeks. In other cases, I've read 3 months, so maybe that's about the average time to see results.

The problem I see is how do we define 'results'. When there is a lot of body fat to lose, results may not even be evident until significant body fat has been dropped, but that doesn't mean that fat is not being lost. Perhaps, for the more analytical person, measuring different parts with calipers may give a more complete picture of how fat is being lost throughout the body. For example, I know that the first part I start noticing changes is in my chest. For some reason, when I start lifting regularly, my pectorals are the first ones that change both in fat (I measure that area with calipers once) and definition. My waist is probably the last that starts to evidence results even though my clothes may fit more comfortably. That's probably because fat is 'burned' at different rates and in an irregular way, but it's burned nonetheless.

With respect to other results, I think is good to define that to ourselves. Is it 'dramatic' muscle hypertrophy, is it 'significant' improvement in resistance and/or power, or are the results more related health-benefits (blood pressure, blood glucose, HDL, etc.)? What exactly do we want to track as a 'result'? Here, I find that many people really put most of their effort on weight loss instead of say HDL. In fact, improvements in HDL may come a lot sooner than significantly visible weight loss. So, focusing on the latter may actually not be a good idea because we might get discourage if we don't see 'results' in a certain (usually limited) amount of time.

I find that tracking something else that can also be measured actually helps me stick with the training. Gains in strength or power can easily be measured. In fact, they should be assessed periodically so the routine can be adjusted when intensity needs to be increased. In this case, 'results' for me means that after say 2 weeks I was able to increase the load by 10% because I wasn't getting enough resistance lifting the same weight or because the muscle exahaustion I'm going for is not occurring within the XX number of repetitions it usually happens. That to me is an important result and helps me adjust the intensity of the exercise to make the best of it.

Perahps is just that I've learned not to get impatient but to think more on the other little things that are getting fixed behind the scenes before I can even notice my muscles again.:)

[Mitra]

Gains in strength or power can easily be measured. In fact, they should be assessed periodically so the routine can be adjusted when intensity needs to be increased.

When you say that the intensity "needs" to be increased, do you mean that the HDL benefits or fat-burning, or whatever is the goal will not continue unless the intensity is increased?

I don't know about HDL, because I think I've only had mine measured once in my life, but I've never been conscious of any change in fat-burning as a result of exercise - I think I'd pretty much have to give my life over to exercise to get a noticable effect, so I'm glad the Eadeses suggest diet is the main tool in controlling fat burning!

I was also pleased to see that you prefer performance measures rather than size/fat assessment. My LBM has not changed measureably, but I can do and lift things now that I couldn't before. I have two distinct ridges of muscle down my back as a result of the years of yoga. And since I've paid particular attention to core strength this last year, to help with my lower back stability, my abdomen feels totally solid, though there isn't much to see, and if I had 5% more body fat (still in the healthy range) you'd struggle to see any changes. But I know that when I was young and healthy I coudn't do a push-up, whereas now I can do several (I do them very slowly, and accurately, like in SB, so can't knock off 50, but there's a big improvement in what I can do) and I can now (just about) do a one-legged squat on either leg, which I couldn't a couple of years ago.

[Gabriel Guzman]

When you say that the intensity "needs" to be increased, do you mean that the HDL benefits or fat-burning, or whatever is the goal will not continue unless the intensity is increased?


No, I meant gains in strength and/or power, which can be assessed periodically. When the muscles get used to the same loads there may not be more challenge to them and one way in which we can notice that is in the amount of weight we're able to lift after a period of time doing resistance, compared to our starting point. Periodical assessment of our '1 repeteition maximum' would tell us where we are at any given time. Other ways to roughly assess improvement is when we it takes a lot more repetitions to get muslce exhaustion (if that's the way we're training, of course), and that means it's time to increase the weight, which in turn will increase intensity.


I don't know about HDL, because I think I've only had mine measured once in my life, but I've never been conscious of any change in fat-burning as a result of exercise - I think I'd pretty much have to give my life over to exercise to get a noticable effect, so I'm glad the Eadeses suggest diet is the main tool in controlling fat burning!


In PPLP they wrote that the most effective way to lose weight (if that is the main goal for a person to get on with the plan), is to reduce carbohdyrates, wich I agree. This comparison is made against exercise alone. It doesn't mean that is 'better', only more effective. The combination, however, as they wrote it, is even more efficient and it makes a lot of sense because when we try to tailor the exercise based on what we're eating, in other words, we exercise so the body performs optimally with what we eat.

Exercise alone may also work without paying much attention to nutrition, but being realistic, people may not always exercise and it takes very little to lose the habit, whereas we always have to eat and in some instances is much easier to cook than to exercise. The challenge is to integrate both.



I was also pleased to see that you prefer performance measures rather than size/fat assessment. My LBM has not changed measureably, but I can do and lift things now that I couldn't before. I have two distinct ridges of muscle down my back as a result of the years of yoga. And since I've paid particular attention to core strength this last year, to help with my lower back stability, my abdomen feels totally solid, though there isn't much to see, and if I had 5% more body fat (still in the healthy range) you'd struggle to see any changes. But I know that when I was young and healthy I coudn't do a push-up, whereas now I can do several (I do them very slowly, and accurately, like in SB, so can't knock off 50, but there's a big improvement in what I can do) and I can now (just about) do a one-legged squat on either leg, which I couldn't a couple of years ago.

There are other ways to notice changes. My favorite is how the clothes fit because for me, my problem is on my waist more than other areas. I've notice many times that whether is only through nutrition or in combination with exercise, changes in how my clothes fit come sooner than noticeable changes elsewhere. However, as I wrote before, there are areas that respond rather quickly upon exercise and I take advantage of that!:)

There is a study conducted maybe one or two years ago (which unfortunately I can't find in my files... I must have left that at my last job) that looked into what made people stick with their exercise for more than 6 months. The study pointed out two major reasons why people would start exercising: general improvement of their health and physical appearance. Those who focused mainly on exercising to either regain or maintain their general health tended to stay exercising regularly for more than 6 months. Those that took on exercise focusing only on their physical appearance dropped out within the first 3 months.

Those results are really not surprising because as we've been discussing, it takes time to see 'significant' results in physical appearance. As the study pointed out, reasons for droping out included discouragement upon lack or 'results'. Maybe the reason is discouragement upon lack of fast results.

I think that if people would take on exercise once they learn exactly how things happen and that they don't happen in a week or two, they would have different, more realistic expectations. It doesn't meant they can't achieve the physique they want, it just doesn't happen in the time they think.

Incidentally, have you notice that most, if not all, informercials about this or that exercise plan (Tae Bo, Turbo Jam, this machine, that machine... etc) have that little disclosure when they show 'actual users' talking about how they lost 20 lbs in a week doing this or that or how they burn 1000+ calories in an hour of Turbo Jam? The disclosure says 'results vary, you may not be as successful' Talk about a negative message. Maybe they should say something like 'results vary, it may take you longer to achieve your goals'. At least, there's a bit of hope saying it that way!

In any case, I always consider it very dangerous when these 'fitness gurus' show up on camera offering and even promising people that they will drop their body fat so much that they'll become cut in no time. I'd respect them a lot more if at least they were more realistic... but reality in this contest doesn't sell, does it... dreams do?:(

[Mitra]

No, I meant gains in strength and/or power, which can be assessed periodically.

Thank you for clarifying that. This is why I think it's so important to be clear about our goals in exercising: whether you're wanting to improve general health and fitness, or are looking for improved sports performance or major muscular development. For general fitness, I don't believe we have to place the same emphasis on always intensifying the workout, just as it's not necessary (or desirable) to keep reducing body fat to ever lower levels. I would expect for general fitness that you could reach a level you were happy with, and then carry on with a sort of maintenance programme just as we do with diet. Is this wrong?

Because most people are interested in losing fat, we tend to talk as is losing fat is always a good thing, but anorexia isn't our goal. Similarly, because most people could usefully gain some muscle, we talk as if the goal is always to gain more, but most of us would choose to stop somewhere short of looking like Arnold. I don't think this point is very controversial, but I do think it's sometimes overlooked. I don't think in terms of losing fat and gaining muscle forever, but of reaching some body composition that we see as healthy or desirable and then staying there. At that point, do we still need to keep increasing the intensity of the workout just to stand still?

[Gabriel Guzman]

Thank you for clarifying that. This is why I think it's so important to be clear about our goals in exercising: whether you're wanting to improve general health and fitness, or are looking for improved sports performance or major muscular development. For general fitness, I don't believe we have to place the same emphasis on always intensifying the workout, just as it's not necessary (or desirable) to keep reducing body fat to ever lower levels. I would expect for general fitness that you could reach a level you were happy with, and then carry on with a sort of maintenance programme just as we do with diet. Is this wrong?


Not at all. That is looking at exercise as the means and not the end. I always like to go back to Protein Power (Ed. 1996) to read what the Eades wrote about Stan Kuter. This person, after six months of adequate protein intake combined with resistance tranining transformed his body from where he was (seriously overweight) into a leaner individual with noticeable more muscle mass. This is the part I always found interesting:

From Protein Power, Ed. 1996 (my italics)
Stan doesn't work out regularly anymore and doesn't always follow his restricted-carbohydrate regimen, but he still looks great (photo included in the book showing a still leaner and muscular Stan). The reason: te large mass of lean tissue he build when he did workout is a fat-burning furnace that keeps his metabolic rate fired up, so he can have much more leeway on his diet without suffering the consequences. When he does gain a lilttle fat, he simply cuts back on his carbohydrates slightly, and in just a few days the excess is gone. He works out with the weights occasionally, which keeps him from losing the muscle mass maintaining what he already has.


Personally, my goal is to bring my body into my recommended body fat percentage according to my age and sex. Once there I'll decide where do I want to go. Once there, I'll evaluate not only my lean body mass at that point, but also if I'm more flexible, if my blood pressure is still good and more important, my cholesterol levels. Exercise will likely become a way to maintain whatever muscle I have gain and unless I decide to go into bodybuilding (you never know... ;), my level of resistance will likely stay around the same.

Having said that, I also recognize the powerful effect that exercise has in some people and quite simply they just want to keep going, challenging themselves a bit more every time to the point that they can see themselves not doing it always a bit more challenging every time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. I just don't think that it has to become 'the norm'.

Incidentally, the description of what Stan did after he recomposed his body sounds very much like maintenance to me.


Because most people are interested in losing fat, we tend to talk as is losing fat is always a good thing, but anorexia isn't our goal. Similarly, because most people could usefully gain some muscle, we talk as if the goal is always to gain more, but most of us would choose to stop somewhere short of looking like Arnold.


I see that in different ways sometimes. Some people are scared of doing resistance exercise because they are afraid of becoming an 'Arnold"-looking like person and since that's not what they want, then they don't do it. On the other hand, some people think that just because they do resistance they will become an Arnold-looking like person. To become an Arnold-looking person, one has to want it first and then train hard (really hard) second until it becomes your second nature. A good physique is not just a bodybuilder type of physique. I call that an 'enhanced' physique and no, I'm not talking about steroids and the like because there are ways to do 'natural' bodybuilding, unaided by drugs.

To me, at least, a good physique is one that provides a good ratio lean body mas/body fat, or in other words a physique that provides a good body fat percentage. Now 'good' for me may not be 'good' for somebody else so 'good' for me is a body fat within my range according to age and sex. If my vanity wins and I do want to see my six pack looking like a washboard, then I have to push harder but that wouldn't make me neither look nor feel 'healthier' because my body fat would already be good enough for health benefits to begin with. We probably owe it to the media that the idea of a 'good physique' is only that with 3-4% body fat.

Provided that I do things correctly regarding food and exercise to increase improve my health (i.e. to go down to my range of body fat%), I have no doubt that I will also increase my muscle mass so I really don't worry about that a great because I know it will happen if everything I know about how muslces react to resistance exercise is true.


I don't think this point is very controversial, but I do think it's sometimes overlooked. I don't think in terms of losing fat and gaining muscle forever, but of reaching some body composition that we see as healthy or desirable and then staying there. At that point, do we still need to keep increasing the intensity of the workout just to stand still?

Well, since I'm all for keeping my muscles always away from adapting too much, even in maintenance I would alternate between staying at the same level of resistance and kicking it up a notch from time to time. That could also keep me away from boredom!;)

[hawk]

Gabe, My upper body also shows the fastest change. I lost and inch and a half in my neck in two months. But upper body is where I gain weight easiest. If my husband lifts weights his pecs firm up far faster than his abs. And he does not have a large stomach.

[banshee]

I guess when people talk about "results" they are generally talking about visible results, and that's probably what my friend meant, too. But I was wondering if the reality was that there was muscle building and fat burning going on from day one, but just not visible. I think Gabe answered that in the discussion above. Thanks Gabe!

I'm like you, Gabe, in that I'd like to get my body fat down to a healthy range based on my age/sex. I'd also like to "feel" stronger and more able to do things that are currently beyond my abilities. And I hope that the resistance training will also bring even more health improvements with my cholesterol, etc. So I guess I want it all! <grin>

I do know that I can "feel" the muscles in my arms - they aren't jelly arms anymore - but I can't yet "see" a difference. I know it will take a while for that to happen, and I'm not impatient, since I hope that I'll be able to keep this up as a habit for life. That's why I'm on the boards - I need Shadow to crack her whip and keep me going! :D

[gator8me]

How do we go about figuring out how much LBM we personally should have? I have around 127 LBM and am wondering if at this point I should just be concentrating on losing fat or if I need to actually build more muscle as well? So at what point can we say... alright i've built enough muscle mass and now I just need to lose more fat?
One of the reasons I ask this question is because the personal trainer I had a few months back said I was good on the LBM and that I actually had more LBM than alot of men let alone women.???? hmmm....

[Gabriel Guzman]

How do we go about figuring out how much LBM we personally should have? I have around 127 LBM and am wondering if at this point I should just be concentrating on losing fat or if I need to actually build more muscle as well? So at what point can we say... alright i've built enough muscle mass and now I just need to lose more fat?
One of the reasons I ask this question is because the personal trainer I had a few months back said I was good on the LBM and that I actually had more LBM than alot of men let alone women.???? hmmm....

I don't think there is a specific number to aim for LBM. Instead, there is a specific range of body fat to aim for, whateve your lean body mass (and whatever the body weight) is at that point. The benefit of learning how to estimate LBM is so we always know the minimum protein intake we need but I don't think there is a specific number to aim for.

[Shadow]

That's why I'm on the boards - I need Shadow to crack her whip and keep me going! :D
My pleasure, Mary :p!!!

[Viking Dan]

I've read that the initial strength gains one sees on a weight lifting program are neurological moreso than actually muscle growth. No idea to what extent or when that changes.

[Gabriel Guzman]

I've read that the initial strength gains one sees on a weight lifting program are neurological moreso than actually muscle growth. No idea to what extent or when that changes.

Neurological strength gain? Would you like to post an exerpt of what you've read or ellaborate on that a little more?

There is something that some people call "Neurological Conditioning", in which he nervous system learns to recruit more of the muscle to complete a weight training routine. After birth, we go through similar neurological conditionings, for example when we learn to move and use our limbs. Actually the connection is between the brain and the muscle via the nerves in what it's call a 'motor unit'. When we first start lifting weights, whether we use free weights or machines, there are specific movements that we're not used to and are needed to complete the exercise. The actual 'learning' to handle free weights and/or machines brings about the development of motor units, so from that stand point, there is a neurological 'gain' first and then muscle strength.

It's also very common to read 'You start to get strong before you start to get big...', which means that your muscles first condition themselves to lifting and one can stay there or 'make a decision' to 'get big' by changing the approach to exercises. It's important to note that resistance weight training doesn't necessarily has to end up in 'big muscles' but it most likely result in 'more dense' ones.

[Viking Dan]

Neurological strength gain? Would you like to post an exerpt of what you've read or ellaborate on that a little more?


I'm sure I phrased that poorly. The following snippet is in line with what I'd read/imagined I read/dreamt I heard/ etc. Considering how old the studies they site are, it could even have been disproved by now.:confused:

Neurological Adaptation to Resistance Exercise

As an untrained individual begins a strength training program for the first time they will experience quite dramatic increases in muscular strength. These improvements in strength will continue almost linearly for about 8-12 weeks. The dominating mechanism of these initial strength gains are neurological in nature(Morianti,1979; Sale,1988). These adaptations take place with or without increases in muscle cross sectional area (CSA). Muscle hypertrophy usually begins after 4-6 weeks of training while the contributions of neural adaptations to increases in strength slowly diminish. Some ways that a muscle may undergo neural adaptation include cross-education, increases in electromyographic (EMG) activity, reflex potentiation, alterations in the co-contraction of antagonist muscles, and improved coordination of synergist muscles. The nature of the changes are determined by the nature of the stimulus. If you regularly allow only very slow contractions of a given muscle, that muscle will improve its ability to contract slowly, at times at the expense of its ability to contract rapidly and powerfully. If you train a muscle for endurance, it will improve its ability to use slow twitch fibers and even begin to change the contractile properties of other fibers in favor of endurance-type activity. All this due to chronic, and specific neural activity patterns.

Hm. Since you're a biochemist maybe I should shut up about this now.

[Gabriel Guzman]

Hm. Since you're a biochemist maybe I should shut up about this now.

Not at all, that's how we usually benefit here... from discussion, exchange and sometimes debate of ideas.