How to lose fat and gain muscle at the same time? Strength training plus a mild caloric deficit

Ballor et al. (1996) conducted a classic and interesting study on body composition changes induced by aerobic and strength training. This study gets cited a lot, but apparently for the wrong reasons. One of these reasons can be gleaned from this sentence in the abstract:

    “During the exercise training period, the aerobic training group … had a significant … reduction in body weight … as compared with the [strength] training group ...”

That is, one of the key conclusions of this study was that aerobic training was more effective than strength training as far as weight loss is concerned. (The authors refer to the strength training group as the “weight training group”.)

Prior to starting the exercise programs, the 18 participants had lost a significant amount of weight through dieting, for a period of 11 weeks. The authors do not provide details on the diet, other than that it was based on “healthy” food choices. What this means exactly I am not sure, but my guess is that it was probably not particularly high or low in carbs/fat, included a reasonable amount of protein, and led to a caloric deficit.

The participants were older adults (mean age of 61; range, 56 to 70), who were also obese (mean body fat of 45 percent), but otherwise healthy. They managed to lose an average of 9 kg (about 20 lbs) during that 11-week period.

Following the weight loss period, the participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week aerobic training (four men, five women) or weight training (four men, five women) exercise program. They exercised 3 days per week. These were whole-body workouts, with emphasis on compound (i.e., multiple-muscle) exercises. The figure below shows what actually happened with the participants.

As you can see, the strength training group (WT) gained about 1.5 kg of lean mass, lost 1.2 kg of fat, and thus gained some weight. The aerobic training group (AT) lost about 0.6 kg of lean mass and 1.8 kg of fat, and thus lost some weight.

Which group fared better? In terms of body composition changes, clearly the strength training group fared better. But my guess is that the participants in the strength training group did not like seeing their weight going up after losing a significant amount of weight through dieting. (An analysis of the possible psychological effects of this would be interesting; a discussion for another blog post.)

The changes in the aerobic training group were predictable, and were the result of compensatory adaptation. Their bodies changed to become better adapted to aerobic exercise, for which a lot of lean mass is a burden, as is a lot of fat mass.

So, essentially the participants in the strength training group lost fat and gained muscle at the same time. The authors say that the participants generally stuck with their weight-loss diet during the 12-week exercise period, but not a very strict away. It is reasonable to conclude that this induced a mild caloric deficit in the participants.

Exercise probably induced hunger, and possibly a caloric surplus on exercise days. If that happened, the caloric deficit must have occurred on non-exercise days. Without some caloric deficit there would not have been fat loss, as extra calories are stored as fat.

There are many self-help books and programs online whose main claim is to have a “revolutionary” prescription for concurrent fat loss and muscle gain – the “holy grail” of body composition change.

Well, it may be as simple as combining strength training with a mild caloric deficit, in the context of a nutritious diet focused on unprocessed foods.

Reference:

Ballor, D.L., Harvey-Berino, J.R., Ades, P.A., Cryan, J., & Calles-Escandon, J. (1996). Contrasting effects of resistance and aerobic training on body composition and metabolism after diet-induced weight loss. Metabolism, 45(2), 179-183.

Life insurance "checkbooks" -- otherwise known as Retained Asset Accounts

Picture this: You're the beneficiary on a life insurance policy of, say, your spouse. The person dies. But instead of a check for the life insurance, you get what looks like a checkbook.

The money is there anytime you want it, the company tells you. Simply write a check. In the meantime, the money will stay in an interest-bearing account.

Life insurers say that the practice allows people faced with a devastating emotional loss to take their time and make the right decisions about what to do with the money. They often offer different types of payouts, from a single lump sum to payments over the course of your lifetime, etc.

But they also tend to make money on this arrangement, by keeping some of the interest. This system, known as "retained asset accounts," has been much in the news lately.

Here at the Washington State Insurance Commissioner's Office, we've received virtually no complaints about RAAs -- and we checked back over several years -- but do feel that it's important that consumers know what these accounts are and how they work. In particular, they should know that they can cash out the entire balance immediately if they're ready to. Here's a page we built that describes how the accounts work, the types of payout options that insurers generally offer. Take a look.

WA state to save nearly $60 million on reinsurance costs

Washington state is one of the employers taking advantage of an early program included in the Affordable Care Act - Thanks to the Early Retiree Program, the state's Health Care Authority (the agency that provides health benefits to state employees) expects to save $24.2 million on its retiree health benefits this year, and $34.5 next year.

How does it work? The Early Retiree Program was created to help businesses continue to offer health insurance to those workers 55 and older who retire early, but don't yet qualify for Medicare. Applicants who are approved to participate in the program receive reinsurance for the claims of high-cost retirees and their families.

Approved applicants can use these funds to provide premium relief and other health care cost relief to their retirees and workers and their families, to offset increases in their own health care premiums or costs, or for a combination of these purposes.

See a full list of the Washington businesses that have been accepted into the program so far.

Where to find car- and truck safety ratings online

Looking for crash ratings and other tests of cars and trucks?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety does vehicle tests, and has recently launched a new series of rollover-safety tests based on roof strength. It's easy to search for test results by make and model.

The ratings are closely watched by manufacturers, who often make changes based on test results. Ford, for example, recently made design changes to strengthen the outside door handles on the Ford Fiesta -- now designated a "Top Safety Pick" by IIHS -- to reduce the chance of doors springing open in side-impact crashes.

Last year, in honor of its 50th anniversay, IIHS made this striking video, comparing the crashworthiness -- nearly head to head -- of a 1959 Chevy Bel Air and a 2009 Chevy Malibu. The video's pretty amazing.



The other must-go place to look at crash tests is SaferCar.govhttp://www.safercar.gov/, where the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration posts the results of its crash test and rollover ratings. It also posts information about safety recalls, defect investigations, and how consumers can file complaints about suspected safety problems with vehicles.