Aerobic vs resistance training for fat loss and lean mass

Combined training considers fat loss and lean mass together

The choice need not end with walking or strength training. In the healthy-adult comparison, concurrent training reduced fat mass by an average of 1.09 kg more than resistance training alone. Body fat percentage did not differ significantly between exercise modes. The authors also concluded that adding resistance work to aerobic training neither improved nor impeded fat mass loss.[2] Combining exercise types is therefore not evidence that fat disappears at twice the rate.

A 2025 review focused on middle-aged and older adults, including participants aged 50 and above. It combined 53 studies involving 2,873 people. Concurrent training increased body weight and lean body mass more than aerobic training alone. Against resistance training alone, it showed no significant differences in body weight, body fat percentage, fat mass, waist circumference or visceral fat. The authors characterized concurrent training as comparable to aerobic training for reducing body fat measures and comparable to resistance training for increasing muscle mass.[8]

Calling the higher body weight in the combined group a failure would overlook the lean body mass measured alongside it.[8] A task defined as lowering total weight is different from a task defined as reducing fat while retaining other parts of the body. Judging a shopping bag only by its total weight tells you little about what is inside. Choosing the contents you care about makes the research easier to read, without dismissing the scale or asking it to answer every question.

Scheduling the combination is another question. The healthy-adult review found no significant differences in body weight or body fat percentage between concurrent programs performed on the same day and programs split across different days. A comparison showing a difference in fat mass came from a single study.[2] This does not provide strong grounds for declaring one arrangement essential for fat loss. Walking on workdays and fitting strength training into a different available slot remains a scheduling choice to consider.

Evidence for combined exercise also comes from the review of 114 trials including people with overweight or obesity. Resistance plus aerobic training reduced fat mass by an average of 1.4 kg and body fat percentage by 2.3 percentage points compared with no-training controls. Interventions including dietary energy restriction maintained lean mass, while resistance training alone increased it.[6] The combination of components matters: the review describes different results for reducing fat and maintaining or increasing lean mass, rather than one outcome that summarizes them all.

Abdominal subcutaneous fat provides another example of the need to read comparisons closely. A review of 43 trials and 3,552 participants found that aerobic, resistance and combined exercise all reduced its area compared with controls. But the direct comparison between aerobic and resistance training found no significant difference: the mean difference was −0.73 cm², with a 95% confidence interval of −4.50 to 3.04 cm².[19] The measurement describes an area of subcutaneous fat, rather than a waist measurement or a weight of fat.

The differences from controls were −13.05 cm² for aerobic training, −5.39 cm² for resistance training and −28.82 cm² for combined exercise. The authors’ conclusion described aerobic exercise as more effective for reducing abdominal subcutaneous fat, while the largest numerical reduction against controls was reported for combined exercise.[19] The direct aerobic-versus-resistance comparison nevertheless found no significant difference. Otherwise, a reader may mistake results collected against different control groups for a demonstrated head-to-head advantage.

The same review did find a significant difference between aerobic and combined training: a mean difference of 11.07 cm², with a 95% confidence interval of 1.81 to 20.33 cm².[19] Keeping the direction, unit and comparison visible makes the result more informative than a general claim that one exercise is best for the abdomen. Each estimate belongs to a specific comparison. Together, they support considering combined training while resisting a universal promise about every measure of fat loss.

Read intensity rankings alongside the people and exercise dose

In the 2023 visceral-fat network meta-analysis, vigorous aerobic exercise and high-intensity interval training had a high probability of ranking best for improvement.[1] High-intensity interval training, or HIIT, alternates higher-intensity exercise with recovery periods. Its detailed comparisons and practical considerations are covered in HIIT and body fat reduction. For this choice, bear in mind the difference between a ranking in a network analysis and an advantage demonstrated in a direct comparison.

A separate review of 11 trials in adults with overweight or obesity found that HIIT was not superior to continuous aerobic training for body fat percentage or abdominal visceral fat. For visceral fat, the standardized mean difference was −0.05, with a 95% confidence interval of −0.29 to 0.19.[12] A favorable high-intensity ranking should therefore not make continuous activity seem pointless. The direct comparison answers a narrower question, and its lack of superiority needs to remain part of the account.

Starting body composition and sex also appear in the findings. In subgroup analyses of the 84-trial review, resistance training improved visceral fat in men and in groups with body fat percentage below 40%. An improvement was not confirmed in women or groups with body fat percentage of 40% or above.[1] However, sex did not explain differences in effects on total fat mass or body fat percentage in the healthy-adult resistance review.[7] The outcomes and populations differ, so the visceral-fat subgroup result is not a rejection of strength training for women generally.

When looking for research relevant to you, check the outcome alongside the participant characteristics. A subgroup result for visceral fat and a result for whole-body fat mass are addressing different questions.[1][7] You can give fat loss and lean-mass retention separate places in your plan, using the aerobic comparisons to consider the former and the resistance-based interventions to consider the latter.[2][6] This shifts attention from an overall exercise winner to the particular change you want to assess.

There are concrete time and frequency figures in the evidence. The 2021 visceral-fat review identified three sessions per week over 12–16 weeks as an effective exercise dose, with aerobic sessions lasting 30–60 minutes. However, visceral-fat reduction did not differ between exercising above or below 150 minutes per week. Increasing program duration or exercise amount did not significantly influence the effect in its analysis.[5] The review included 34 studies and 1,962 participants, with 32 studies and 1,900 participants contributing to pooled analyses.[5]

Those findings offer a researched pattern to consider, while preserving the limit on what more minutes can be expected to do. They do not establish that everyone needs precisely the same weekly amount. Nor do they justify treating the boundary of 150 minutes as a point where visceral-fat reduction suddenly changes.[5] If you are comparing programs, record both the session duration and the period over which you can realistically keep the arrangement going. That makes your plan more comparable with the conditions discussed in the research.

A 2023 review of 40 trials and 2,190 adults with overweight or obesity found a different dose-related result. Larger energy deficits generated by exercise were associated with larger effects on visceral fat. Exercise overall had an effect size of −0.28, with a 95% confidence interval of −0.37 to −0.19. Most studies were judged to have a moderate risk of bias.[20] This dose finding differs from the earlier review, which measured exercise amount in minutes.

The analyses considered different ways of describing dose: exercise time in one account and exercise-generated energy deficit in the other. Their selected studies also differed.[5][20] A practical plan can specify how long you exercise, but that does not make time and energy deficit identical measures. The evidence supports reading the amount together with the method used to quantify it. “More exercise” is too broad a phrase to capture the questions these analyses asked.

The 2023 review measured visceral fat by CT or MRI and compared exercise and dietary energy restriction separately with controls maintaining energy intake. Dietary restriction also reduced visceral fat, with an effect size of −0.53 and a 95% confidence interval of −0.71 to −0.35. However, a dose–response relationship between the size of the dietary energy deficit and the visceral-fat effect was not confirmed.[20] Showing a reduction and showing a progressively greater reduction as dose rises are separate findings. The dietary result illustrates that distinction as clearly as the exercise comparisons do.

Common misconceptions

“Strength training does not reduce fat” confuses the comparator. Aerobic exercise reduced more fat mass in some comparisons with resistance training.[2] Against no-exercise controls, however, resistance training improved fat mass and body fat percentage.[6][7] Choosing an activity you can manage can still be worthwhile. A larger average reduction with another activity under certain study conditions does not erase that value. The useful question is what role that activity can play in your plan, given the outcome you care about.

“Doing both always gives the greatest weight loss on every measure” goes beyond the evidence. Combined exercise considers fat and muscle-related outcomes together, but the healthy-adult review found no significant differences between modes for body fat percentage. In the middle-aged and older-adult review, fat-related outcomes did not differ significantly between combined and resistance training alone.[2][8] Explaining the value of a combination requires saying what you want to reduce and what you want to retain. Simply adding another activity does not establish an improvement in every result.

“If abdominal fat is the concern, choose the highest intensity” gives too much weight to rankings. Some analyses ranked higher-intensity exercise favorably, while direct comparisons found no significant advantage over continuous aerobic training for visceral fat or body fat percentage.[1][12] Intensity alone should not become a measure of an activity’s value. If a doctor has restricted your exercise, or your health requires an individual decision about activity, ask your doctor before choosing the type and amount. The comparative averages do not replace that personal judgment.

What you can do today

• Consider an aerobic plan of three sessions per week, each lasting 30–60 minutes, within what is appropriate for your health. Use the 12–16-week intervention pattern identified in the visceral-fat review as a reference when choosing a schedule you can maintain.[5]
• If your routine contains only aerobic activity, consider adding full-body resistance training and planning to continue it for at least 4 weeks. That was an inclusion condition in the healthy-adult review, rather than a promise of a particular amount of weight loss after 4 weeks.[7]
• If combining aerobic and resistance exercise, choose the same day or different days according to the time you can make available. The healthy-adult comparison found no significant difference between these arrangements for body weight or body fat percentage.[2]
• Record two items for each exercise session—its type and duration—then review the amount completed at the end of the week. Write fat reduction and muscle retention as separate goals so that a single scale result does not stand in for both.
• If a doctor has placed restrictions on your exercise, check the proposed activity and amount with your doctor before starting.

Fitting aerobic and strength options into your week at On the Shore Tachikawa

When planning aerobic activity alongside strength training, consider the times and places that will help you keep exercising. On the Shore Tachikawa offers a place to build that habit around your schedule. On the Shore Tachikawa (オンザショア立川店) is a lava-stone hot yoga studio, open every day from 8:00 to 23:30. The address is 3F Etoile Bldg, 2-14-10 Akebonocho, Tachikawa, Tokyo, a 1-minute walk from the North Exit of JR Tachikawa Station.

The yoga trial includes a 60-minute lesson, mat rental, 2 bath towels and 1 face towel for ¥1,980 including tax. This is a yoga trial; check the lesson description when considering its place in your exercise routine.

Personal training, HIIT, boxercise and women-only kickboxercise are among the studio’s activities, alongside Pilates and room-temperature yoga. Hot yoga takes place in a studio fitted with lava-stone plates, and the yoga roster includes more than 25 kinds of lessons. Many of our yoga instructors speak English, and the studio’s owner often helps guests from the US bases in English herself.

Pregnant guests cannot join lava-stone hot yoga; room-temperature maternity yoga is available. Guests who have been told by a doctor not to exercise cannot join. Review the activities on the studio website, consult the prices page for costs, and use the trial booking page for a yoga trial reservation.

References

1. Effects of various exercise types on visceral adipose tissue in individuals with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis of 84 randomized controlled trials — Xiao-Ke Chen et al., 2023, Obesity Reviews. DOI: 10.1111/obr.13666
2. Comparison of concurrent, resistance, or aerobic training on body fat loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis — Kworweinski Lafontant et al., 2025, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. DOI: 10.1080/15502783.2025.2507949
3. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effect of aerobic vs. resistance exercise training on visceral fat — Imtiaz Ismail et al., 2012, Obesity Reviews. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00931.x
4. Effect of exercise intervention dosage on reducing visceral adipose tissue: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials — Yu-Hsuan Chang et al., 2021, International Journal of Obesity. DOI: 10.1038/s41366-021-00767-9
5. Resistance training effectiveness on body composition and body weight outcomes in individuals with overweight and obesity across the lifespan: A systematic review and meta‐analysis — P. Lopez et al., 2022, Obesity Reviews. DOI: 10.1111/obr.13428
6. The Effect of Resistance Training in Healthy Adults on Body Fat Percentage, Fat Mass and Visceral Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis — M. Wewege et al., 2021, Sports Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01562-2
7. The Effects of Concurrent Training Versus Aerobic or Resistance Training Alone on Body Composition in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis — M. Khalafi et al., 2025, Healthcare. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13070776
8. High-intensity interval training is not superior to continuous aerobic training in reducing body fat: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials — A. Kramer et al., 2023, Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesf.2023.09.002
9. The Effect of Aerobic and Resistance Training and Combined Exercise Modalities on Subcutaneous Abdominal Fat: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. — H. Yarizadeh et al., 2020, Advances in nutrition. DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmaa090
10. Dose–response effects of exercise and caloric restriction on visceral adiposity in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials — Francesco Recchia et al., 2023, British Journal of Sports Medicine. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106304

Cover photo: Dumbbells for strength training are arranged on a weight rack in a gym. (Photo: Lance Cpl. Jason Jimenez / Public domain / Wikimedia Commons)

Information as of October 2026. For your own health, consult a doctor.

More from Diet Science (English)

• Metabolic adaptation and why your weight loss can slow down
• Body composition and weight loss beyond the bathroom scale
• Food logging and weight loss: what matters beyond perfect records
• Protein and weight loss beyond fullness and the bathroom scale
• Dietary fiber and weight loss: what gut research really shows
• Low-carb vs low-fat diets: what long-term weight loss shows
• Time-restricted eating and weight loss: what trials reveal
• Breakfast and weight loss: what eating or skipping really changes
• Sleep deprivation and appetite: why nighttime snacks add up
• Stress and emotional eating beyond the cortisol explanation
• HIIT and body fat loss: what shorter workouts can really offer
• Strength training, metabolism and the science of weight regain
• Yoga and weight loss: what body composition research shows
• Hot yoga calories and sweat: what a lighter scale really means
• Pilates and body composition: what posture and fat studies show
• NEAT and weight loss: what everyday movement can really do
• Daily steps and weight loss: what 8,000 steps really tells us
• Keeping weight off: what long-term maintainers do and how they recover
• Daily self-weighing and weight loss: how to use the numbers
• Water before meals and weight loss: what 500 ml trials show
• Sugary drinks and sweeteners: what replacement means for weight
• Alcohol and weight loss through calories, appetite and fat use
• Ultra-processed foods and overeating through the trial evidence
• Eating rate and weight loss: what slower chewing can change
• Menopause weight gain and why your waist can change first
• Postpartum weight loss through diet, exercise and support
• Sarcopenia and protein: protecting muscle as you grow older
• Visceral fat in men and what exercise changes beyond weight
• Supervised exercise and weight loss: building lasting habits

All Diet Science articles (English)