I did a radio interview today with Angela Kokott on QR77 in Calgary, and one of the questions we discussed was the perennial claim that lifting weights is better than aerobic exercise for burning calories. It’s a claim that isn’t totally crazy — even the most recent American College of Sports Medicine position stand on weight loss reverses earlier stands by acknowledging the possibility that resistance training could contribute to weight loss by elevating resting metabolic rate, increasing fat oxidation, and making people more active generally. Here’s the funky flowchart they use to illustrate this process:
Still, the “evidence statement” endorsed by the position stand is: “Resistance training will not promote clinically significant weight loss.” In other words, it’s a nice theory, but the studies of actual people losing weight don’t back it up.
The reason I bring this up is that James Fell has a good article in the Los Angeles Times that tackles this topic — in particular, taking on the oft-repeated whopper that every pound of muscle burns an extra 50 calories a day. He turns to Claude Bouchard of Pennington Biomedical Research Center, who offers the following breakdown of resting metabolic rate (RMR):
“Brain function makes up close to 20% of RMR. Next is the heart, which is beating all the time and accounts for another 15-20%. The liver, which also functions at rest, contributes another 15-20%. Then you have the kidneys and lungs and other tissues, so what remains is muscle, contributing only 20-25% of total resting metabolism.”
The punchline, according to Bouchard: a pound of muscle burns about six calories a day while a pound of fat burns two calories a day. Don’t get me wrong: strength training is great for many reasons, and I certainly encourage everyone (including, reluctantly, myself) to do some. But it’s not a miracle weight-loss technique.
Strength training is an important component in most professional sports. In distance running, however, we’re in the stone ages,” says Luke Carlson, CEO of Discover Strength and strength coach for many of the elite runners of Team USA Minnesota. Carlson believes that too many distance runners leave certain performance variables to chance when they forego regular strength training.
In the world of ancillary training, there is no other type of “extra” workout that is backed by more academic literature. “The preponderance of peer-reviewed research suggests that strength training improves running performance, whether that’s running economy or time to exhaustion,” Carlson explains.
Stephen Haas, a member of Team Indiana Elite, immediately noticed a difference in both overall performance and health since joining the elite ranks and committing to an organized weekly strength workout. “I really think it has helped us a lot. No major injuries in four years in any of the guys is pretty amazing,” he says.
Brett Gotcher of McMillan Elite in Flagstaff agrees. Over the years he has had coaches who have put less emphasis on strength, but since joining McMillan, he’s seen tangible improvements in his performances. “A lot of times people associate strength training with getting buff,” says Gotcher. “That’s not our purpose at all. I think it is one important aspect that can help make someone that ‘complete’ runner we all strive to be.
By Mackenzie Lobby As featured in the Web Only issue of Running Times Magazine`
A runner’s heart is true, especially when it’s used to gauge the intensity of a workout. Our intro to heart rate training will get you off and running.
By Josh Clark
To monitor or not to monitor. The answer boils down to a basic question of your philosophy as a runner. Those who favor heart rate monitors (HRMs) will tell you that HRMs are a great way to hone the pace of any given workout to the precise intensity called for. These fans often report big performance improvements thanks to their HRM training. With an HRM, advocates say, you can always avoid overtraining; by exercising at a specific heart rate, there’s no longer any guesswork, only the fact of hard numbers.
Those who pooh-pooh HRMs, on the other hand, like the guesswork. These folks prefer to have their pace governed by how they feel, rather than by an electronic gizmo strapped to their chest. To these purists, an HRM introduces a cold edge of technology and science into their running, cutting into the joy and freedom of their run.
It’s simply a difference of outlook. If you’re running mainly for performance and you want to squeeze the maximum conditioning out of each workout, you’d probably like an HRM. If you run mainly for fun and for release, you not only won’t like an HRM, you’d probably resent it. It’s up to you.
This chart defines training zones in terms of pace and other methods of measuring intensity. Use it to hit your goal on every run.
By Alex Hutchinson
Easy Run (recovery zone) Pace: One to two minutes slower than marathon pace % Max heart rate: 65 to 70% Perceived Effort: 3 to 4/easy Talk Test: Complete conversation
Training Run (aerobic zone) Pace: Marathon pace or slightly slower % Max heart rate: 75 to 85% Perceived Effort: 5 to 6/moderate Talk Test: Full sentences
Tempo Run (threshold zone) Pace: 20 to 30 seconds slower than 5-K pace % Max heart rate: 88 to 92% Perceived Effort: 7 to 8/hard Talk Test: A few words at a time
Intervals (VO2 max zone) Pace: Mile to 5-K pace or faster % Max heart rate: 95 to 100% Perceived Effort: 9/very hard Talk Test: Can’t…talk…must…run…
