The Distance Dilemma: Why Long Runs Aren’t The Fast Track To Fat Loss

Aghast wrote:

The funny thing is just simple statistics say that all those people in the before and after profiles will be fat again in about a year.

Most of the features athletes from the before/after pages on bodybuilding.com have a profile page where you can look them up. They usually continue to progress along. So your statement is not true.

NutritionStudent wrote:

So I read the first and last page of this thread (which was started by a troll) and after reading this article have a major flaw in it to point out. The article doesn't say if the interventions burned about the same number of calories each. If running 12 miles a week burns over 1,200 calories (100+any extra because they're fat) then the lifting intervention needs to burn as many calories so that each intervention is equal. The only way to lose fat is to burn more than you take in.

It's a fair observation that diet, and more specifically maintaining a calorie deficit, is an important aspect of weight control.

That said, the Cross-Fitter's argument, as I understand it, is that even though fewer calories are burned per unit time during the workout session, the resultant increase in muscle mass ultimately burns more net calories. It seems that's the postulate this study tries to address. It doesn't look like they tried to control diet through the study at all.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

That said, the Cross-Fitter's argument, as I understand it, is that even though fewer calories are burned per unit time during the workout session, the resultant increase in muscle mass ultimately burns more net calories. It seems that's the postulate this study tries to address. It doesn't look like they tried to control diet through the study at all.

Thanks - finally someone who read the scientific study and also understood it.

Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:

Yes, it took her 2 years, that's a long time. And she lost a lot of muscle, too. Would have probably had more success with throwing in some lifting.

Success at what? Like the large majority of this forum, she runs to get good at running, not good at fat loss. Take your b.s. to some other website...

Lean body mass doesn't burn nearly as many calories as you seem to think. Each pound of muscle burns 7-10 calories, versus about 3 for fat. These people in your article are successful because they changed their diet and stuck to a vigorous exercise plan, not because muscle burns tons of calories.

lifting weights keeps your metabolism raised for 24-36 hours after lifting.

also, increasing your lean body mass raises your resting metabolism.

either way you look at it, weight lifting is essential for losing weight!

lennyTHElifter wrote:

lifting weights keeps your metabolism raised for 24-36 hours after lifting.

also, increasing your lean body mass raises your resting metabolism.

either way you look at it, weight lifting is essential for losing weight!

Whether or not lifting keeps your resting metabolism raised for 24-36 hours depends on intensity. If you are doing a 12 rep 10 station cicuit at 60% of 1 rep max this is not likely.

You said weight lifting is esential for losing weight. That is just a lie. It is helpful, but not "essential".

This thread gets a 1/10 on the unofficial Letsrun.com troll meter. Only one person had a chance to respond before the OP chimed in again.

If you are a runner who hates the crossfit guys, then well done. Kudos.

If you are actually trying to promote crossfit, then you should take notice that you just made us hate your community even more.

I've been off the boards for a while. when did we start getting xfitters telling us how to lose weight??

Have Have we turned into runnersworld or something?

I hope im preaching to the quire when I say don't worry about your weight and just enjoy running

*choir. Sorry fat thumbs plus autocorrect

Sounds like you need to try xfit runrunner!

Xfitguy wrote:

Have you seen the transformation pictures? I have yet to see such success with running only.

What a scam. A few years ago some magazine got called out for accidentally having two ads from two different companies that happened to have used the same before/after photos of the same man. One ad claimed he had lost X number of pounds, implying fat loss. The other ad claimed he had gained X number of pounds, implying muscle gain. Pretty funny that both ads accidentally appeared in the same edition of the same magazine. I wish I had saved the pictures because I can't find them by googling.

We're all avoiding the real issue. Why do you want to lose weight? To attract the opposite sex. Why do you want to attract the opp sex? To have sex. Xfitters have way more confidence and thus have way better sex. We have a winner!

Lots of flaws with this line of think, not the least of which is that xfitters have more confidence than runners. If you spend any timebonbthis board you will notice you will not find a bigger group of self confident arrogent people

critical thinker wrote:

What a scam. A few years ago some magazine got called out for accidentally having two ads from two different companies that happened to have used the same before/after photos of the same man. One ad claimed he had lost X number of pounds, implying fat loss. The other ad claimed he had gained X number of pounds, implying muscle gain.

Stay on topic brother. This thread is about fat loss and how weight lifting (as e.g. in Crossfit) is superior in this field to running. Thanks.

Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:

critical thinker wrote:

What a scam. A few years ago some magazine got called out for accidentally having two ads from two different companies that happened to have used the same before/after photos of the same man. One ad claimed he had lost X number of pounds, implying fat loss. The other ad claimed he had gained X number of pounds, implying muscle gain.

Stay on topic brother. This thread is about fat loss and how weight lifting (as e.g. in Crossfit) is superior in this field to running. Thanks.

Since you used the pictures as proof for your statement, he is on topic.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

That said, the Cross-Fitter's argument, as I understand it, is that even though fewer calories are burned per unit time during the workout session, the resultant increase in muscle mass ultimately burns more net calories. It seems that's the postulate this study tries to address. It doesn't look like they tried to control diet through the study at all.

Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:

Thanks - finally someone who read the scientific study and also understood it.

You realize the AJP article/study didn't support that postulate, right?

I can't figure out if this xfitcross guy is trying to troll or if he is really convinced of his findings and studies. And if so, why is he trying to help us?

Xfitguy wrote:

Great scientific article on why long distance running doesn't lead to a great body. Sure, most pro runners are slim but it's not because of the running. They're great distance runners because they are slim.

Anyway, this article gives great insight of why weight lifting is superior for before-after-pics than running:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/distance-dilemma-running-and-fat-loss.html

Most comments seem to agree with this.

You're really going to call this a "scientific" article? It's an advertisement.