Geschatte leestijd: 4 minutenAccording to researchers at Wake Forest University, people over 60 on a diet benefit more from strength training than cardio.
Strength Training vs. Cardio
People with overweight work on their health by losing weight. Older adults work on building muscle mass to be able to move well at a later age. What if you are older with overweight? Do you follow a diet and mainly do cardio or do you combine the diet with strength training?
If you are following a weight loss-focused diet, according to researchers at Wake Forest University, you should spend your time on strength training. The researchers looked at the preservation/loss of muscle mass compared to lost body fat in their paper “Effect of Exercise Type During Intentional Weight Loss on Body Composition in Older Adults with Obesity.” The findings were published in the November issue of Obesity [1].
The researchers followed 249 overweight individuals aged 60+ for 18 months. During these 18 months, a weight loss-focused diet was followed. In addition to a group that only followed the diet, participants were divided into groups that combined the diet with strength training or cardio (in the form of walking).
- The total loss of body fat was greatest in the group that combined the diet with strength training (average about 7.7 kg), followed by the combination with cardio (average 7.3 kg). Following the diet alone led to about 4.5 kg of weight loss.
- The total loss of muscle mass was greatest in the group that combined the diet with cardio (average about 1.8 kg). In the groups that followed the diet alone or combined it with strength training, this was on average 0.9 kg.
So, in the group combining the diet with cardio, twice as much muscle mass was lost compared to the group combining it with strength training.
When losing weight, you don’t just want to lose kilograms. You want to lose fat but also retain as much muscle mass as possible to function well. This could mean being able to walk faster due to weight loss but losing strength in, for example, knee bends due to lost muscle mass. In the group that followed the diet and did cardio, 20% of the weight loss was muscle mass. In the group that followed the diet alone, this was 16%, and in the group combining it with strength training, only 10%.
The researchers point out that older adults who often yo-yo in weight during weight loss also lose muscle mass that is not or hardly regained upon regaining weight. Muscle preservation is therefore especially important in this group. To their surprise, they found that combining with cardio cost more muscle mass than the diet alone (which can be explained by higher energy expenditure).
Cardio Alert?
Still, I wouldn’t want to discourage you from combining your diet with cardio as an older adult with overweight. This is mainly due to the difference between theory and practice.
The researchers have tried to add to existing studies by following a larger group over a longer period. According to them, their findings would therefore be more applicable to practice than smaller, shorter studies under tightly controlled conditions. That may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s representative of the average overweight person aged 60+. It is representative of the overweight person aged 60+ who follows a strict and well-thought-out diet for 18 months. In addition, coaching sessions were provided in the study, both individually and in groups. Under these ideal conditions, you can indeed wonder if the extra fat loss from cardio outweighs the loss in muscle mass.
Combining your diet with strength training is ideal and certainly recommended. However, many people know what would be better for them. Strength training may be more difficult to incorporate into your daily routine than cardio. Moreover, cardio has more health benefits than just fat burning. We have written several articles here about the added value of cardio that you can incorporate into your daily life. From walking or cycling to work to active chores around the house. Last month, the results of a study were published showing the added value of walking [2].
Walking has been described as the ‘perfect exercise’ because it is simple, free, convenient, doesn’t require any special equipment or training, and can be done at any age. With the near doubling of adults aged 65 and older expected by 2030, clinicians should encourage patients to walk even if less than the recommended amount, especially as they age, for health and longevity.
According to Dr. Patel, who looked at data from 140,000 participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort, walking less than 2 hours per week would reduce the risk of death compared to no exercise. Studies like these often show that it’s better to find a way of exercising that you can stick to than to try to follow a ‘perfect’ schedule that is not achievable or sustainable.
If you are not following a diet where you create a calorie deficit daily over a long period, it’s a good idea to take on any form of cardio that you can easily incorporate into your routine. Even if you are following a diet (consciously or unconsciously) where you consume slightly more daily than your resting energy expenditure (BMR), this routine movement can make the difference between gaining or not gaining weight.
So, ideally: Follow a suitable diet combined with strength training and possibly cardio.
In practice for most people: Embrace whatever form of exercise you can, leave out whatever food you can.
References
- Kristen M. Beavers, Walter T. Ambrosius, W. Jack Rejeski, Jonathan H. Burdette, Michael P. Walkup, Jessica L. Sheedy, Beverly A. Nesbit, Jill E. Gaukstern, Barbara J. Nicklas, Anthony P. Marsh. Effect of Exercise Type During Intentional Weight Loss on Body Composition in Older Adults with Obesity. Obesity, 2017; 25 (11): 1823 DOI: 10.1002/oby.21977
- Alpa V. Patel, Janet S. Hildebrand, Corinne R. Leach, Peter T. Campbell, Colleen Doyle, Kerem Shuval, Ying Wang, Susan M. Gapstur. Walking in Relation to Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Older U.S. Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.08.019
