A recent study came out looking at aerobic exercise and fat loss. The study compared two groups for 13 weeks – one that did 30 mins of aerobic exercise per day and burned approx 300 calories. The second group did 60 mins of aerobic exercise per day and burned approx 600 calories.
At the end of 13 weeks, the 30-minute workout group lost 8.8 pounds of fat, while the 60-minute workout group lost 8.4 pounds. These aren’t great results but I’ll confess I just didn’t expect that. I wouldn’t expect DOUBLE the results from double the exercise, but less results overall? i.e. it was worse?
The researchers noted:
“A moderate dose of exercise induced a markedly greater than expected negative energy balance, while a higher dose induced a small but quantifiable degree of compensation.” and that Energy balance was 83% more negative than expected in the [30 min group], while it was 20% less negative than expected in the [60 min group].
Here were my questions after reading the study:
There was a positive compensation with the short workout and a negative compensation with the longer workout. The question is, how can we ramp up the first one and avoid the second? At what point/duration of exercise does the negative compensation kick in? Perhaps longer training sessions create a residual tiredness so that the participants moved less the rest of the day? That, with an increase in appetite due to perturbatory mechanisms to liver and muscle glycogen stores (shown in previous studies) with aerobic work could be the issue. And does it apply to interval work? Strength training? Interesting stuff nonetheless. We’ll test out some more at Results Fitness and keep you guys posted.
via Alwys Cogove