Abs abs please i want tight core
Replies
-
IF you're comparing fat calories burned ( EX: take 200 calories burned from hiking, and 200 calories burned from resting), then yes you'll burn more FAT calories resting if the calories burned were equal.You burn more FAT sleeping 8 hours a day than doing 2 hours of hiking, yes. Notice I didn't say CALORIES. The ratio of calories from hiking will come from mostly from glycogen and little fat if glycogen is depleted enough. The body's energy source at rest is 100% FAT (unless you have alcohol in your system) which is why rest is so important. You're resting more than you're working out throughout the day so the amount of FAT% burned will be much much higher than if you were working out. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.
Ok let's get back to specifics - are you saying that someone will burn MORE FAT resting on the couch for 2 hrs rather than going for a 2 hr hike/long run? (Both people will sleep at night so that's a wash). There is no case where someone gets to pick between a 2 hrs activity OR an 8 hr sleep.
Body composition no. One is active the other isn't. Muscle atrophy will definitely affect weight. However, if the calorie deficit is 500, the bedridden person (if there metabolic rate doesn't drop much) will still lose a pound a week, just like the moderate distance runner. It's still math. That's what CICO is about.Secondly, are you saying that someone who is bedridden, but consumes exactly 500 cals under their TDEE will be in exactly the same weight and body composition as a moderate distance runner who does the same (500 cals under TDEE, say 10 hrs of cardio a week)?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
He has great genetics. Body fat % can sometimes be deceiving. Someone who's more muscular, will have more "pop" to their definition than someone who has the same body fat % and not that muscular. Lots of models have low body fat %, but don't have muscle "pop" due to lack of muscle.doing a bunch of ab exercises doesn't make them POP more. The muscle will be more conditioned, but that doesn't affect how they look much at all.
@ninerbuff
I know you're an American Ninja Warrior fan, so taking the above comment into consideration, what do you think about Tremayne Dortch's abs? They certainly seem to pop out of him more than other people of the same bodyfat %.
Awkward pic of his abs, but you get the idea...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
The amount which the abs can pop out is very limited by the way the muscle is shaped.0
-
You're viewing it incorrectly. Let's say you burn 600 calories sleeping. Now let's say you burn 600 calories in a 1 hour cardio workout. The percentage of calories burned from fat sleeping is 100%. The percentage of fat calories burned from working out 1 hour is 5%-35% depending on intensity. So 600 calories of exercise and multiply that by 5%-35% and you get 30-210 calories. I'll even spot it at 50%. That's 300 calories. Now I don't know where 300 calories is viewed as larger than 600 calories. Point is that resting burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat, than that of exercising if you're comparing equal calorie burns.cwolfman13 wrote: »he's talking about what gets used for fuel...at rest, your body will use fat for fuel...when you're active, your body will use glycogen for fuel. he never mentioned body composition and he's not advocating for not working out...he's simply talking about what gets used for fuel for various activities...i.e. when you're running on a treadmill, you're not actively burning fat...you are burning stored glycogen as it is a more effective fuel...it's like a hybrid switching from battery to gas....it switches to gas when it needs to do more.
I know he's saying that and it's misleading. Which is bigger, 100 or 60? Now which is bigger, 100% of 100 cals or 60% of 800 cals? Saying 100 is bigger than 60 is true but completely wrong in context.
If you want to use the Hybrid analogy you have to reverse it (and it still isn't great). Glycogen is your limited 1 hr battery charge, and fat is a 100 gallon tank. You are always burning gas, but you can use the electric motor for extra speed/power in combination with the gas motor. When you're done speeding, your gas motor will slowly charge your electric charge back up. The goal of racing is to go exactly fast enough that your glycogen runs out at the finish line (and you don't overheat).
You burn fat while doing cardio. A lot.
We can discuss this all day long, but I'm giving information that's printed in Journals of Exercise Physiology, Kinesiology, and Endocrinology and Metabolism.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
That food diary is not accurate at all. It's all cups, generic entries, sizes of fruit and veg instead of weights etc.0
-
A great thread and pics showing that cardio isn't needed lose weight.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10164678/wheelchair-user-130lbs-healthier/p1
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
You're viewing it incorrectly. Let's say you burn 600 calories sleeping. Now let's say you burn 600 calories in a 1 hour cardio workout. The percentage of calories burned from fat sleeping is 100%. The percentage of fat calories burned from working out 1 hour is 5%-35% depending on intensity. So 600 calories of exercise and multiply that by 5%-35% and you get 30-210 calories. I'll even spot it at 50%. That's 300 calories. Now I don't know where 300 calories is viewed as larger than 600 calories. Point is that resting burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat, than that of exercising if you're comparing equal calorie burns.cwolfman13 wrote: »he's talking about what gets used for fuel...at rest, your body will use fat for fuel...when you're active, your body will use glycogen for fuel. he never mentioned body composition and he's not advocating for not working out...he's simply talking about what gets used for fuel for various activities...i.e. when you're running on a treadmill, you're not actively burning fat...you are burning stored glycogen as it is a more effective fuel...it's like a hybrid switching from battery to gas....it switches to gas when it needs to do more.
I know he's saying that and it's misleading. Which is bigger, 100 or 60? Now which is bigger, 100% of 100 cals or 60% of 800 cals? Saying 100 is bigger than 60 is true but completely wrong in context.
If you want to use the Hybrid analogy you have to reverse it (and it still isn't great). Glycogen is your limited 1 hr battery charge, and fat is a 100 gallon tank. You are always burning gas, but you can use the electric motor for extra speed/power in combination with the gas motor. When you're done speeding, your gas motor will slowly charge your electric charge back up. The goal of racing is to go exactly fast enough that your glycogen runs out at the finish line (and you don't overheat).
You burn fat while doing cardio. A lot.
We can discuss this all day long, but I'm giving information that's printed in Journals of Exercise Physiology, Kinesiology, and Endocrinology and Metabolism.
But you can't just ignore time. This is what you're doing - "A pickup truck uses 30L of gas in 1 hour, the smart car uses 40L of gas in 5 hrs, therefore the Smart car burns more gas". Well yes, that's technically true but it's completely misleading. Especially if you sprout the conclusion out of context "Smart cars use more gas than an F150". No, they don't. Well unless you compare 5 hrs to 1...
So it's absurd to say 6 hrs of sleep is better than 1 hr of running - it's apples to gorillas comparison. You'd at LEAST have to compare 6 hrs of solid rest vs 5 hrs of rest and 1 of running, or whatever.
Or let me rephrase it as one of your clients: "Should I run moderately for an hour, or sleep for an hour". Are you going to reply "Sleep for 6 hrs instead!!". No.
I semantically get your point but you are making it in a bad way. So instead, how about - You don't HAVE to do cardio for fat loss, but you probably SHOULD.
0 -
No, I'm backing my original statement of "Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking?" (feel free to go back an look). I did defend the statement and it doesn't sound like you're debating whether or not it's true...........just that you're perturbed that I'm not comparing 8 hours of sleep to 8 hours of exercise. But THAT wasn't the original statement.
You're viewing it incorrectly. Let's say you burn 600 calories sleeping. Now let's say you burn 600 calories in a 1 hour cardio workout. The percentage of calories burned from fat sleeping is 100%. The percentage of fat calories burned from working out 1 hour is 5%-35% depending on intensity. So 600 calories of exercise and multiply that by 5%-35% and you get 30-210 calories. I'll even spot it at 50%. That's 300 calories. Now I don't know where 300 calories is viewed as larger than 600 calories. Point is that resting burns a higher PERCENTAGE of fat, than that of exercising if you're comparing equal calorie burns.cwolfman13 wrote: »he's talking about what gets used for fuel...at rest, your body will use fat for fuel...when you're active, your body will use glycogen for fuel. he never mentioned body composition and he's not advocating for not working out...he's simply talking about what gets used for fuel for various activities...i.e. when you're running on a treadmill, you're not actively burning fat...you are burning stored glycogen as it is a more effective fuel...it's like a hybrid switching from battery to gas....it switches to gas when it needs to do more.
I know he's saying that and it's misleading. Which is bigger, 100 or 60? Now which is bigger, 100% of 100 cals or 60% of 800 cals? Saying 100 is bigger than 60 is true but completely wrong in context.
If you want to use the Hybrid analogy you have to reverse it (and it still isn't great). Glycogen is your limited 1 hr battery charge, and fat is a 100 gallon tank. You are always burning gas, but you can use the electric motor for extra speed/power in combination with the gas motor. When you're done speeding, your gas motor will slowly charge your electric charge back up. The goal of racing is to go exactly fast enough that your glycogen runs out at the finish line (and you don't overheat).
You burn fat while doing cardio. A lot.
We can discuss this all day long, but I'm giving information that's printed in Journals of Exercise Physiology, Kinesiology, and Endocrinology and Metabolism.
But you can't just ignore time. This is what you're doing - "A pickup truck uses 30L of gas in 1 hour, the smart car uses 40L of gas in 5 hrs, therefore the Smart car burns more gas". Well yes, that's technically true but it's completely misleading. Especially if you sprout the conclusion out of context "Smart cars use more gas than an F150". No, they don't. Well unless you compare 5 hrs to 1...
So it's absurd to say 6 hrs of sleep is better than 1 hr of running - it's apples to gorillas comparison. You'd at LEAST have to compare 6 hrs of solid rest vs 5 hrs of rest and 1 of running, or whatever.
My original statement isn't incorrect. Can you burn more fat adding exercising? Absolutely. But it's not required. Why would that be important on a site like this? Because if the inference would be "you need to do cardio to burn fat", half the people would give up right away. Not EVERYONE enjoys having to do exercise.Or let me rephrase it as one of your clients: "Should I run moderately for an hour, or sleep for an hour". Are you going to reply "Sleep for 6 hrs instead!!". No.
I semantically get your point but you are making it in a bad way. So instead, how about - You don't HAVE to do cardio for fat loss, but you probably SHOULD.
And I've NOT said not exercising is a way someone should go. The debate has been about fat burning efficiency. My original rebuttal was that cardio wasn't needed to burn fat and that when exercising, fat is not the first source of energy used. And it's TRUE. And somehow it's morphed into this debate about whether or not someone should exercise or sleep?
So I tell you what: tell your friends or whomever whatever you want. I do pretty well at my job as a profession whether you want to agree or not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Sounds more like your feelings may have been hurt. Not uncommon for a person to throw insults out when they really can't debate well on a subject. I've got science to back my statements. As well as years and years of experience in the field working with people who've had lots of weight to lose and been successful with them. Why not actually show how you've come to your opinion and back it with some peer reviewed clinical study/evidence rather than just spurt out what your opinion is? That'd at least be more helpful for people who may wonder about how fat loss works.rgv2 you seem to almost take the steroid comment personally. You must be one of the many juice freaks. And gdyment, you make a lot of good points to make the so called certified personal look like he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Just like the great advice from rgv2.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
My original statement isn't incorrect. Can you burn more fat adding exercising? Absolutely. But it's not required. Why would that be important on a site like this? Because if the inference would be "you need to do cardio to burn fat", half the people would give up right away. Not EVERYONE enjoys having to do exercise.
And I've NOT said not exercising is a way someone should go. The debate has been about fat burning efficiency. My original rebuttal was that cardio wasn't needed to burn fat and that when exercising, fat is not the first source of energy used. And it's TRUE. And somehow it's morphed into this debate about whether or not someone should exercise or sleep?
So I tell you what: tell your friends or whomever whatever you want. I do pretty well at my job as a profession whether you want to agree or not.
I said it was deceptive and misleading, and you should know better. Keep adding hours to one side until you get the sound-bite comparison you want. The true "big picture" is the person who did the 2 hr hike is going to get an extra ~1500 cals to eat or put towards weight loss over your sleeper. Trying to spin it so it seems insignificant (even factually correctly) is sleazy. Girl wants ab definition you should be encouraging running not dismissing it.
As a certified personal trainer, I would think you would actually follow and promote guidelines from the American College of Sports Medicine (150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week) above and beyond any resistance work.
But if you want to cling to the "required/needed" clause - Ed Stafford marooned himself on a desert island for 60 days with nothing and ended up eating a lot of snails. He lost a ton of weight. So you don't need to eat properly, or do any weights. Technically true - should you promote that idea as well?
Usually I agree with you (and have read a lot of the same articles, EPOC overstated, fat-burning zone bs etc) but for some reason you've got the blinders on that you can be factually correct but still misleading (which is why more than 1 person called you on it).
0 -
I laught when I see out of shape people doing abs. What do you think you can be fat everywhere and have a washboard stomach. Diet is the only way to get abs. Abs 10min twice a week is more than enough to build the muscles but diet is the only way to uncover the fat over them.
you laugh when out of shape people are working on being in shape? hm
I work on core but I'm not expecting nor aiming for my abs to show.0 -
For everyone jumping on ninerbuff, his very first comment was helpful info directed right to OP. What everyone is all freaking out about is his later post, which was in response to someone else. He was correcting misinformation. It's not like his first response in this thread was to tell OP forget cardio it's useless. If you read into it wrong, saying it's deceptive, you didn't read it carefully. And he has continually and clearly made his point in a way that is not deceptive.
Certain activities primarily use certain energy sources. Cardio doesn't primarily burn fat. That is the correction he was making. If you all want to translate that into Cardio is useless, Cardio can't help you lose weight etc. that is your own foolishness.
Give it a break already. None of this is helping OP, who needs some critical attention to her diet. If her logging is accurate she is seriously undereating and getting next to no protein. If her logging isn't accurate she's deluded, and deceiving us as well as herself.0 -
You view it as misleading and deceptive. I've NEVER said that one shouldn't exercise, exercise is useless or that it shouldn't be added to one's regimen. I merely stated factual information and you and another got all riled up about it, more than likely misinterpreting what I actually stated. Your last sentence verifies that.My original statement isn't incorrect. Can you burn more fat adding exercising? Absolutely. But it's not required. Why would that be important on a site like this? Because if the inference would be "you need to do cardio to burn fat", half the people would give up right away. Not EVERYONE enjoys having to do exercise.
And I've NOT said not exercising is a way someone should go. The debate has been about fat burning efficiency. My original rebuttal was that cardio wasn't needed to burn fat and that when exercising, fat is not the first source of energy used. And it's TRUE. And somehow it's morphed into this debate about whether or not someone should exercise or sleep?
So I tell you what: tell your friends or whomever whatever you want. I do pretty well at my job as a profession whether you want to agree or not.
I said it was deceptive and misleading, and you should know better. Keep adding hours to one side until you get the sound-bite comparison you want. The true "big picture" is the person who did the 2 hr hike is going to get an extra ~1500 cals to eat or put towards weight loss over your sleeper. Trying to spin it so it seems insignificant (even factually correctly) is sleazy. Girl wants ab definition you should be encouraging running not dismissing it.
Lol, do you think I tell my clients and gym members to just sleep for 8 hours to lose weight and fat? You probably know that I've posted many many many threads on the forums on the benefits of exercise as well as tips and instruction. Your statement is Ad Hominem.As a certified personal trainer, I would think you would actually follow and promote guidelines from the American College of Sports Medicine (150 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per week) above and beyond any resistance work.
I haven't "promoted" NOT to exercise or do cardio. I stated "one doesn't NEED to do cardio to burn fat." That's all. Didn't say it DOESN'T burn fat. Yourself and another cardio person have gotten your shorts all twisted up in it and viewed it as an "attack" against cardio, when that NEVER was the point in the first place.But if you want to cling to the "required/needed" clause - Ed Stafford marooned himself on a desert island for 60 days with nothing and ended up eating a lot of snails. He lost a ton of weight. So you don't need to eat properly, or do any weights. Technically true - should you promote that idea as well?
Lol, as I've mentioned you and the other persons have taken it somehow on a personal level. But hey, that's your guys' issue to deal with. There's no reason for me to recant anything that I've already proven factually correct. If it makes you feel better, cardio is one of the best ways to burn calories and I'd endorse that to anyone who's looking for higher calorie burns.Usually I agree with you (and have read a lot of the same articles, EPOC overstated, fat-burning zone bs etc) but for some reason you've got the blinders on that you can be factually correct but still misleading (which is why more than 1 person called you on it).
I'm going for a walk now. To burn more calories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Are you supplementing with amino acids so your body can use the protein appropriately? I don't see any complete protein in your diet. Not good. Read this and try her suggestions to try and change your body comp. http://www.laurenkern.com/?portfolio=what-vegetarians-need-to-know-to-decrease-body-fat-and-increase-lean-muscle-20
-
I believe that the OP is more than likely not eating enough. If her intake is 1000 calories, and she's exercising and not compensating by eating more to net 1000 calories, then her net calorie intake is probably around 700 calories or less a day. Which would explain why she may not be losing any more body fat.Are you supplementing with amino acids so your body can use the protein appropriately? I don't see any complete protein in your diet. Not good. Read this and try her suggestions to try and change your body comp. http://www.laurenkern.com/?portfolio=what-vegetarians-need-to-know-to-decrease-body-fat-and-increase-lean-muscle-2
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I believe that the OP is more than likely not eating enough. If her intake is 1000 calories, and she's exercising and not compensating by eating more to net 1000 calories, then her net calorie intake is probably around 700 calories or less a day. Which would explain why she may not be losing any more body fat.Are you supplementing with amino acids so your body can use the protein appropriately? I don't see any complete protein in your diet. Not good. Read this and try her suggestions to try and change your body comp. http://www.laurenkern.com/?portfolio=what-vegetarians-need-to-know-to-decrease-body-fat-and-increase-lean-muscle-2
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Agreed. The diet looks unhealthy to me and I have to imagine that OP's body is eating at muscle tissue to compensate causing flabbiness.0 -
I swear by kettle bell swings for great abs, especially obliques. Gotta go heavy with lots of reps.0
-
I burn 600-700 calories per workout, the proof is in my weight loss, and I eat back most of my calories. I only log a portion of my exercise usually to give me some cushion. When I want to lose I watch my calories a bit and make sure I get 5 to 6 workouts in per week and the weight just falls off. If you work your *kitten* off you can eat a lot more. It is kind of a psychological thing for me. I like to eat.
If someone in my gym implied cardio didn't help me lose weight, I would punch him in the face!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions