Cardio isn't for "fat burning".
Options
Replies
-
Metabolism works to sustain all tissue and organs of the body. So food/drink you consume is basically to feed the cells of energy it's using. Once glycogen stores are refilled, the liver diverts calories to the fat cells for "restorage". Think of a car that burns gas, and if you continue add gas in small amounts during the day and not allow the tank to fully empty. The car still burns gas at the SAME rate till it runs out of fuel.
BMR is an "at rest" count for calories (basically sitting on the couch or laying in bed for the whole day). Most people will be right around 1400-1500 a day on average. Now add in other low intensity activity to the count and as well as any other physical activity, that number could easily be at 1700 or more. And the primary fuel for BMR and low intensity activity (walk to the bathroom, walk to the kitchen, driving your car, etc.) is fat.
Sounds about right. Remember we burn more fat calories at rest than exercising. Most people will exercise 30-60 minutes a day on average so that leaves 23 hours of time that we are at rest or low intensity of physical activity.
Thanks for this. I remember covering this back in college (a long time ago).Protranser wrote: »Isn't there some knowledge floating around these forums that describes a maximum amount of fat that the oxidized per day?
If there is a maximum amount of fat that can be oxidized per day, and, one exceeds the oxidation maximum through calorie deficit, what happens when you exceed the maximum oxidation limit? Where does the energy come from if not fat?
Estimation is the maximum fat oxidation per day is 31 calories per pound of body fat per day.
Unfortunately, that number is based on standard physiology (a weight lifter with above average lean mass probably has a higher limit) and up to moderate amounts of exercise - bouts of high intensity exercise might allow exceeding this limit, particularly in an individual with the physiological adaptations that would allow such bouts to occur. For the most part, 31 kCal/pound body fat/day represents a deficit limit for people mainly losing via dietary calorie cutting versus neat, and not someone looking to lose weight via excess exercise.
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
I have read this before, but this is hard for me to believe or understand.
Let's run some real numbers.
Let's take a 5'4" lightly active, 30-year old woman of 160 pounds and 35% body fat. This gives her 56 pounds of body fat (160 * 0.35 = 56). Her BMR is on the order of 1430 and her TDEE is on the order of 1970.
31 kcal per pound of body fat would be 1736 kcal (31*56 = 1736).
Something tells me that real world maximum fat oxidation is FAR less than 31 kcal per pound.
(Edited with slightly different numbers.)
Subtract 1736 from 1970 and you have 234 calories still in surplus. Also take into consideration some fat is restored through the eating process even though there may be a calorie deficit.
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
????
@ninerbuff I that perhaps think you read through my post too quickly. Could you please reread it and respond again?
I am not sure that I understand your response to me and I think it is because you misunderstood what I wrote.
I am questioning the validity of a 31 kcal/pound fat oxidation rate. I do not think that that rate is realistic. Using her TDEE of 1970 and her fat store of 56 pounds, are you saying that she could consume a mere 234 calories per day and live off her fat stores at the oxidation rate of 1736 kcal per day (56 x 31). People have survived on tiny amounts of food during famines. However, she truly would be starving.
My whole point is that 31 kcal/pound of fat seems way, way too high to me. My suspicion is that real world fat oxidation rates would more likely much, much lower before muscle catabolism starts. But I haven't studied physiology so what do I know? It just seems like 31 kcal/pound is super high to me.
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
@ninerbuff You still misread my post. Or maybe you didn't read it at all.
I understand what both BMR and TDEE are.
What I was questioning was the idea that maximum fat oxidation could be as high as 31 kcal per pound of body fat per day. My supposition was that maximum fat oxidation rates in the real world are far, far less than 31 kcal per pound.
I have seen this 31 kcal per pound of body fat figure used elsewhere online to justify the amount of a deficit.
For example, saying that a 180 pound man with 15% bodyfat (27 pounds) with a TDEE of 2700 kcal could sustain a deficit of 837 kcal per day (31% of his TDEE) because he could oxidize 31 kcal per pound of body fat per day (27 * 31 = 837). (Here's the link to the example I read: http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/ Oh, and what do you know, it's by Lyle McDonald.)
My whole issue was disputing this 31 kcal per pound of body fat oxidation level.
In the example I gave, the 160 pound woman has a TDEE of 1970 and 35% body fat (56 pounds). I was disputing a maximum fat oxidation level of 31 kcal/pound of body fat, because in her case, 31 kcal per pound of body fat would equal 1736 calories. An intake of 1100, 1150 or 1200 calories (something that is not uncommon in some women who glom onto a calorie goal of 1200 kcal/day while on a diet), would result in a a deficit of 870 or 820 or 770 (far below the this theoretical maximum fat oxidation level deficit of 1736 or 31 kcal * 56 pounds of body fat). These would be huge deficits for her, and my guess is that it would result in a much larger amount of muscle loss than with much smaller deficits.
If 31 kcal per pound of body fat were a real world fat oxidation rate, then she would theoretically be able to sustain a deficit of 1736 calories (eating only 234 calories). 1970 TDEE less 1736 supposed maximum fat oxidation = 234.
Do you understand now why I was questioning this fat oxidation rate?
Even if she were highly trained and was lifting in a progressive lifting program to preserve muscle mass, I don't believe that there is any way she would be capable of oxidizing 31 kcal/pound of body fat.
But again, maybe I don't understand.
In any case, this obviously wasn't on topic with the original subject of the thread. I only questioned it because it was brought up by another poster elsewhere in this thread. However, it is off topic and it's been beaten to death, so just forget about it. You don't need to respond further.
So IF you didn't feed the body, metabolic rate would drop and the metabolizing of fat would slow. But because most people still eat on a weight loss program, realize that the body is still working on restoring some fat it lost. Obviously if you're at a deficit, you're not going to be able to restore it to full and that's why fat loss happens.
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 -
Isn't there an increase in a person's metabolic rate from consistent/daily/weekly exercising? This is a huge plus in my book just to exercise (but I am a bit old) LOL
As the above poster said above, I have lost weight, maintained and gained weight whilst exercising.
IMHO I think TV shows, magazines, internet jargon, make it out to believe that you must "exercise to loose weight", or at least that is the way it comes across. So people jump on MFP setup a calorie deficit and jump right on the forums and always ask "how many calories do I need to burn a day to loose weight", or "what type of cardio do I need to do to loose XXX pounds by XXX date?"
Who actually asks how can I improve my cardiovascular health to compliment my weight loss? Not very many.
*raises hand*
In fact I cared more about this than the actual weight but they're both side-kicks and fixing one helps the other. That is I first cared about getting less winded at 11k+ feet and that triggered my desire to fix other things. Generally however..... "Wedding in 6 weeks! ZOMG!"
Agreed. Cardio improved my stamina. I noticed a change in my energy levels after weeks of steady cardio. I'm able to stay in the gym longer. It may not burn fat but I think it's just as important as diet.0 -
I quit following this thread some 10 pages ago, but FWIW.
I worked out 5 times last week for a total of 4hours 45 minutes. Assuming I burned 10 cals per minute (which is on the high side of reasonable), I burned about 2850 calores, or about .8lb. Almost 5 hours for less than 1lb? I don't consider that an efficient method of fat/weight loss.
I hate posts like these. I bet your boss would love to chime in on your work ethic on the job. ;-(
Come on now, a mere 4 hours and 45 minutes of exercise helped increase your deficit to the tune of losing .8 pounds in one week's time is hardly worth it to you? Please! That's about the equivalent of taking a shower followed up by watching one NFL game (3 hours and 15 minutes average), and 60 Minutes after the game. Too stressful for you? Too much effort? Looking for more bang for the buck with less effort?
Well, then get off your lazy backside and put in a decent week of something to the tune of 10-14 hours of exercise. '-]
Whether the CICO is achieved by simply eating at a deficit without exercise, or one bumps up the calories burned side of the equation through exercise (and in the case of this thread exercise that qualifies as cardio) - it takes work to lose weight. Work that one is willing to invest in and perform. Work that our parents and grandparents never even blinked at having to do.
If one is not willing to do the work required to lose something as simple as .8 or 1 pound per week - welcome to the MFP forums where you can either learn to get out of the boat on the River DeNial - or you can whine about not losing weight, or in this case, the actual effort required to boost the -CO side of the equation using some cardio.0 -
Well if I did that, bathroom breaks would be at least 3-4 times the next day. The body is very efficient at storing energy so it's kinda hard to say. Just about anything we eat will cause insulin to be released and excess calories will be stored.So at what point can we break CICO? If a person binges on something extreme like 7000 calories at a sitting, they are not going to metabolize that into 2 pounds of fat overnight. At some point, the body will not be able to keep up and will just ship it out the back end. Where is that point?
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
I can't remember where but I read that the average person could make use of about 25k calories in a 24 hour period give or take. So, yes, I think you can store several pounds of fat from one ridiculous binge.
Ok, so the intestines have transports that absorb the nutrients. They have a max rate - google U says 60g/hr for glucose which is like 5000 calories in 24 hrs. The body can also slow down digestion to try and get more out of it. Length also matters - longer intestine = more calories extracted from X food.
Now suppose you have 2 identical people eating identical food, one who exercises for 2+ hrs a day vs the other being sedentary. Both eat their TDEE (so active guy eats more to keep even).
If you could show the active person has faster digestion, and/or more inefficient digestion (body is busy doing other things) , and/or that adaptations were suppressing those transporters for periods after activity, that active person would be "getting" less calories out of food (ie, the holy grail of dieting - a magic pill that impairs absorption). The active guy can eat more, gain less.
In Racing Weight, Matt refers to physiological adaptations that happen when people "commit' to doing an activity 5+ times a week - rowers look like rowers, runners look like runners, swimmers like swimmers. The body seems to resist holding fat more than can be accounted for by CICO.
Point being, I believe cardio exercise helps fat loss/burning beyond what shows on the calories in/out spreadsheet.
0 -
Random study that doesn't have much to do with the topic but showing that exercise can be useful for other things: http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxyhost.library.tmc.edu/pubmed/26908432
Basically it boils down to losing weight with exercise helping to create the deficit and reduction in calorie only both saw expected weight loss, decrease in leptin, and decrease in inflammation markers, but those that used exercise to help create the deficit saw a larger reduction in inflammation markers.0 -
Well if I did that, bathroom breaks would be at least 3-4 times the next day. The body is very efficient at storing energy so it's kinda hard to say. Just about anything we eat will cause insulin to be released and excess calories will be stored.So at what point can we break CICO? If a person binges on something extreme like 7000 calories at a sitting, they are not going to metabolize that into 2 pounds of fat overnight. At some point, the body will not be able to keep up and will just ship it out the back end. Where is that point?
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
I can't remember where but I read that the average person could make use of about 25k calories in a 24 hour period give or take. So, yes, I think you can store several pounds of fat from one ridiculous binge.
Ok, so the intestines have transports that absorb the nutrients. They have a max rate - google U says 60g/hr for glucose which is like 5000 calories in 24 hrs. The body can also slow down digestion to try and get more out of it. Length also matters - longer intestine = more calories extracted from X food.
Now suppose you have 2 identical people eating identical food, one who exercises for 2+ hrs a day vs the other being sedentary. Both eat their TDEE (so active guy eats more to keep even).
If you could show the active person has faster digestion, and/or more inefficient digestion (body is busy doing other things) , and/or that adaptations were suppressing those transporters for periods after activity, that active person would be "getting" less calories out of food (ie, the holy grail of dieting - a magic pill that impairs absorption). The active guy can eat more, gain less.
In Racing Weight, Matt refers to physiological adaptations that happen when people "commit' to doing an activity 5+ times a week - rowers look like rowers, runners look like runners, swimmers like swimmers. The body seems to resist holding fat more than can be accounted for by CICO.
Point being, I believe cardio exercise helps fat loss/burning beyond what shows on the calories in/out spreadsheet.
Wonder what he means by 'commit'. I've distance run 5+ times per wk for more than a year and don't 'look like a runner'. Certainly don't resist holding fat any more now than before, and I ought to be able to see it since I'm ~25% BF and haven't really changed.
Either there's more to it than that, or he's biased and looking at competition athletes that are doing more than just 5+ activity sessions a week.0 -
I didn't read through all the responses so I don't know if anyone else said this or not but it really is a matter of semantics. If you have a little information you know you aren't actually "burning fat" but for the lay person it is reasonable to say that you are as you are using the stores in your fat cells for energy at a certain point of cardio exercise.
Any way you look at it it is a good idea to have cardio in your exercise/workout plan; you want to have a nice healthy heart to pump the blood to all those nice big muscle, don't you?0 -
Well if I did that, bathroom breaks would be at least 3-4 times the next day. The body is very efficient at storing energy so it's kinda hard to say. Just about anything we eat will cause insulin to be released and excess calories will be stored.So at what point can we break CICO? If a person binges on something extreme like 7000 calories at a sitting, they are not going to metabolize that into 2 pounds of fat overnight. At some point, the body will not be able to keep up and will just ship it out the back end. Where is that point?
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
I can't remember where but I read that the average person could make use of about 25k calories in a 24 hour period give or take. So, yes, I think you can store several pounds of fat from one ridiculous binge.
Ok, so the intestines have transports that absorb the nutrients. They have a max rate - google U says 60g/hr for glucose which is like 5000 calories in 24 hrs. The body can also slow down digestion to try and get more out of it. Length also matters - longer intestine = more calories extracted from X food.
Now suppose you have 2 identical people eating identical food, one who exercises for 2+ hrs a day vs the other being sedentary. Both eat their TDEE (so active guy eats more to keep even).
If you could show the active person has faster digestion, and/or more inefficient digestion (body is busy doing other things) , and/or that adaptations were suppressing those transporters for periods after activity, that active person would be "getting" less calories out of food (ie, the holy grail of dieting - a magic pill that impairs absorption). The active guy can eat more, gain less.
In Racing Weight, Matt refers to physiological adaptations that happen when people "commit' to doing an activity 5+ times a week - rowers look like rowers, runners look like runners, swimmers like swimmers. The body seems to resist holding fat more than can be accounted for by CICO.
Point being, I believe cardio exercise helps fat loss/burning beyond what shows on the calories in/out spreadsheet.
Wonder what he means by 'commit'. I've distance run 5+ times per wk for more than a year and don't 'look like a runner'. Certainly don't resist holding fat any more now than before, and I ought to be able to see it since I'm ~25% BF and haven't really changed.
Either there's more to it than that, or he's biased and looking at competition athletes that are doing more than just 5+ activity sessions a week.
You don't list mileage or photos, but 40+ miles per week would be the bottom end. Serious/competitive is 80+ miles/week. Elite is 130+ with cross training on top. I'm not disputing diet matters (it does a lot) but I think the OP is looking at it with a bit too much of an accounting/excel eye.
0 -
Well if I did that, bathroom breaks would be at least 3-4 times the next day. The body is very efficient at storing energy so it's kinda hard to say. Just about anything we eat will cause insulin to be released and excess calories will be stored.So at what point can we break CICO? If a person binges on something extreme like 7000 calories at a sitting, they are not going to metabolize that into 2 pounds of fat overnight. At some point, the body will not be able to keep up and will just ship it out the back end. Where is that point?
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
I can't remember where but I read that the average person could make use of about 25k calories in a 24 hour period give or take. So, yes, I think you can store several pounds of fat from one ridiculous binge.
Ok, so the intestines have transports that absorb the nutrients. They have a max rate - google U says 60g/hr for glucose which is like 5000 calories in 24 hrs. The body can also slow down digestion to try and get more out of it. Length also matters - longer intestine = more calories extracted from X food.
Now suppose you have 2 identical people eating identical food, one who exercises for 2+ hrs a day vs the other being sedentary. Both eat their TDEE (so active guy eats more to keep even).
If you could show the active person has faster digestion, and/or more inefficient digestion (body is busy doing other things) , and/or that adaptations were suppressing those transporters for periods after activity, that active person would be "getting" less calories out of food (ie, the holy grail of dieting - a magic pill that impairs absorption). The active guy can eat more, gain less.
In Racing Weight, Matt refers to physiological adaptations that happen when people "commit' to doing an activity 5+ times a week - rowers look like rowers, runners look like runners, swimmers like swimmers. The body seems to resist holding fat more than can be accounted for by CICO.
Point being, I believe cardio exercise helps fat loss/burning beyond what shows on the calories in/out spreadsheet.
Wonder what he means by 'commit'. I've distance run 5+ times per wk for more than a year and don't 'look like a runner'. Certainly don't resist holding fat any more now than before, and I ought to be able to see it since I'm ~25% BF and haven't really changed.
Either there's more to it than that, or he's biased and looking at competition athletes that are doing more than just 5+ activity sessions a week.
That was my thought, maybe the author is used to college athletes who are training a lot more than those of us who might be running a lot of miles. A lot of people training for marathons will train up to 40 mpw. But a lot of college runners might be running 50-70 or even 100. Then it's all down to calories again.
My personal experience has been the opposite, the math doesn't work for me and my friends as far as counting exercise calories towards expect lbs lost. Obviously that's just anecdotal. I'm guessing something to do with the body becoming more efficient at the new activity as well as reducing NEAT for the rest of the day or even just somehow lowering your metabolism for a smidgeon for the rest of the day so you burn less at rest. Like, a little bit of exercise and I can count 100%. A moderate amount and I can only count 80% and it drops from there as I increase activity. But that's not science, just something I'm thinking about and trying to explain in the anecdotes of myself and those around me.0 -
Here's where it makes a difference with semantics. If cardio was really the only way to burn fat, what happens to people who utterly hate cardio or can't do it due to an ailment or illness (EX: wheelchair bound)? I hear all the time from people that they hate to do it and when I tell them it's not necessary, they question "how will I burn off the fat then?"I didn't read through all the responses so I don't know if anyone else said this or not but it really is a matter of semantics. If you have a little information you know you aren't actually "burning fat" but for the lay person it is reasonable to say that you are as you are using the stores in your fat cells for energy at a certain point of cardio exercise.
Any way you look at it it is a good idea to have cardio in your exercise/workout plan; you want to have a nice healthy heart to pump the blood to all those nice big muscle, don't you?
Correct information gives people options. Words and statements do matter because people can miscontrue what's being said.
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 -
Homeostasis happens. The body is very efficient at adaptation which is why when people under eat, their metabolic rates can drop quite low. It figures out how to dole out calories based on continuous physical behavior.blues4miles wrote: »
Well if I did that, bathroom breaks would be at least 3-4 times the next day. The body is very efficient at storing energy so it's kinda hard to say. Just about anything we eat will cause insulin to be released and excess calories will be stored.So at what point can we break CICO? If a person binges on something extreme like 7000 calories at a sitting, they are not going to metabolize that into 2 pounds of fat overnight. At some point, the body will not be able to keep up and will just ship it out the back end. Where is that point?
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
I can't remember where but I read that the average person could make use of about 25k calories in a 24 hour period give or take. So, yes, I think you can store several pounds of fat from one ridiculous binge.
Ok, so the intestines have transports that absorb the nutrients. They have a max rate - google U says 60g/hr for glucose which is like 5000 calories in 24 hrs. The body can also slow down digestion to try and get more out of it. Length also matters - longer intestine = more calories extracted from X food.
Now suppose you have 2 identical people eating identical food, one who exercises for 2+ hrs a day vs the other being sedentary. Both eat their TDEE (so active guy eats more to keep even).
If you could show the active person has faster digestion, and/or more inefficient digestion (body is busy doing other things) , and/or that adaptations were suppressing those transporters for periods after activity, that active person would be "getting" less calories out of food (ie, the holy grail of dieting - a magic pill that impairs absorption). The active guy can eat more, gain less.
In Racing Weight, Matt refers to physiological adaptations that happen when people "commit' to doing an activity 5+ times a week - rowers look like rowers, runners look like runners, swimmers like swimmers. The body seems to resist holding fat more than can be accounted for by CICO.
Point being, I believe cardio exercise helps fat loss/burning beyond what shows on the calories in/out spreadsheet.
Wonder what he means by 'commit'. I've distance run 5+ times per wk for more than a year and don't 'look like a runner'. Certainly don't resist holding fat any more now than before, and I ought to be able to see it since I'm ~25% BF and haven't really changed.
Either there's more to it than that, or he's biased and looking at competition athletes that are doing more than just 5+ activity sessions a week.
That was my thought, maybe the author is used to college athletes who are training a lot more than those of us who might be running a lot of miles. A lot of people training for marathons will train up to 40 mpw. But a lot of college runners might be running 50-70 or even 100. Then it's all down to calories again.
My personal experience has been the opposite, the math doesn't work for me and my friends as far as counting exercise calories towards expect lbs lost. Obviously that's just anecdotal. I'm guessing something to do with the body becoming more efficient at the new activity as well as reducing NEAT for the rest of the day or even just somehow lowering your metabolism for a smidgeon for the rest of the day so you burn less at rest. Like, a little bit of exercise and I can count 100%. A moderate amount and I can only count 80% and it drops from there as I increase activity. But that's not science, just something I'm thinking about and trying to explain in the anecdotes of myself and those around me.
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 -
Don't drink before bed. Fat is the primary fuel at rest, but if you have alcohol in your system, then until it's metabolized (alcohol can't be stored in the body), all other energy sources are nixed.If I'm still at a calorie deficit, how does alcohol play into this? Or does it still come down to calories in vs out, regardless if it's wine, or grilled chicken?? (Sorry if this has been asked before!) I just don't want to unknowingly hinder my efforts if I happen to have 2 glasses of wine or cocktails. (But still creating a calorie deficit)
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
Hmmm, so if I do my workout drunk I run less risk of losing muscle mass?
just kidding0 -
I'm not sure that he is very experienced when it comes to the specifics of exercise intensity as it relates to this topic. I contacted him about it and he just told me that he thought aerobic exercise would burn more carbs on a consistent basis as opposed to weights/isometric exercises.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have not. He didn't go into specifics of what I should be doing, other than that I should keep up exercising. While I'm sure there are other factors involved, I do know though that for a few months I did a lot of low to moderate intensity exercise (not much vigorous) and surprisingly my overall blood sugar level actually increased.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying to cut down on excess blood sugar floating around in my bloodstream, since my overall blood sugar level is too high.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.ForecasterJason wrote: »For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?
You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.
There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.
Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
Have you discussed this with your doctor and learned the difference between glycogen in the muscle and blood glucose numbers?
Then definitely talk to your doctor. Exercise increases your insulin sensitivity and should help lower your numbers but if you blood sugar is rising after exercise then there may be a medical issue that needs to be addressed.
That being said, my blood sugar level is still being monitored on a continual basis.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm not sure that he is very experienced when it comes to the specifics of exercise intensity as it relates to this topic. I contacted him about it and he just told me that he thought aerobic exercise would burn more carbs on a consistent basis as opposed to weights/isometric exercises.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have not. He didn't go into specifics of what I should be doing, other than that I should keep up exercising. While I'm sure there are other factors involved, I do know though that for a few months I did a lot of low to moderate intensity exercise (not much vigorous) and surprisingly my overall blood sugar level actually increased.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying to cut down on excess blood sugar floating around in my bloodstream, since my overall blood sugar level is too high.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.ForecasterJason wrote: »For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?
You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.
There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.
Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
Have you discussed this with your doctor and learned the difference between glycogen in the muscle and blood glucose numbers?
Then definitely talk to your doctor. Exercise increases your insulin sensitivity and should help lower your numbers but if you blood sugar is rising after exercise then there may be a medical issue that needs to be addressed.
That being said, my blood sugar level is still being monitored on a continual basis.
You mean you have doctor that doesn't know much about physiology or you just don't give him enough details? He's right in general and I don't think your weight workout is intense enough for him to be wrong. You aren't squatting the gym after all just doing some low intensity lifting from what I recall.0 -
Lol, absolutely. Now as to the EFFECTIVENESS of calorie burn when running drunk........................makingmark wrote: »
Don't drink before bed. Fat is the primary fuel at rest, but if you have alcohol in your system, then until it's metabolized (alcohol can't be stored in the body), all other energy sources are nixed.If I'm still at a calorie deficit, how does alcohol play into this? Or does it still come down to calories in vs out, regardless if it's wine, or grilled chicken?? (Sorry if this has been asked before!) I just don't want to unknowingly hinder my efforts if I happen to have 2 glasses of wine or cocktails. (But still creating a calorie deficit)
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
Hmmm, so if I do my workout drunk I run less risk of losing muscle mass?
just kidding
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 ran a marathon last year (and was doing circuit training for an hour twice a week) and lost no weight because I was not eating well.0
-
DamienWard wrote: »I ran a marathon last year (and was doing circuit training for an hour twice a week) and lost no weight because I was not eating well.
The marathon itself, only burns about 2500-2800 calories. How much training were you doing per week and for how many weeks leading up to it? How many calories were you eating per day, and how many hours per week did you run? Were you trying to lose weight?
Completing a marathon is one thing. Competing in one is an entirely different things.
There is also a great study in Matt's book that looked at three groups of athletes. One group lost weight while doing high intensity intervals (I can't remember if it was 6 weeks or 10 weeks - but the type of time frame one would be doing that getting ready for a marathon or major endurance event on the bike), one group maintained their weight while doing high intensity intervals, and one group lost weight, but did no high intensity intervals.
The group that lost weight and did the intervals saw no improvement in their performance. Which was really depressing when I read that 2 years ago as I was in that predicament. The other two groups saw performance gains - the group that maintained their weight and did the intervals saw improvement, as did the group who did no intervals, but lost weight.
Lesson learned, at least from a competitive stand point, is to lose the weight in the kitchen during the off season before ramping up the intensity training.
He talks about off season weight loss/gain here:
http://www.cxmagazine.com/training-tuesday-matt-fitzgerald-talks-offseason-weight-loss
0 -
I told him what I had been doing, and my question to him was about overall exercise intensity for my situation. I'm not saying that he's entirely clueless, although from his message it did sound like this probably a deeper question than he may be used to. Now, lately I have decided to supplement some of the walking I do with running, and he did suggest that I continue with that.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm not sure that he is very experienced when it comes to the specifics of exercise intensity as it relates to this topic. I contacted him about it and he just told me that he thought aerobic exercise would burn more carbs on a consistent basis as opposed to weights/isometric exercises.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I have not. He didn't go into specifics of what I should be doing, other than that I should keep up exercising. While I'm sure there are other factors involved, I do know though that for a few months I did a lot of low to moderate intensity exercise (not much vigorous) and surprisingly my overall blood sugar level actually increased.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I'm trying to cut down on excess blood sugar floating around in my bloodstream, since my overall blood sugar level is too high.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.ForecasterJason wrote: »For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?
You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.
There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.
Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
Have you discussed this with your doctor and learned the difference between glycogen in the muscle and blood glucose numbers?
Then definitely talk to your doctor. Exercise increases your insulin sensitivity and should help lower your numbers but if you blood sugar is rising after exercise then there may be a medical issue that needs to be addressed.
That being said, my blood sugar level is still being monitored on a continual basis.
You mean you have doctor that doesn't know much about physiology or you just don't give him enough details? He's right in general and I don't think your weight workout is intense enough for him to be wrong. You aren't squatting the gym after all just doing some low intensity lifting from what I recall.0 -
0
-
I have a job where I can pedal a stationary bike all shift. Down from 212 to 185 since Jan. 25th of this year. Cardio doesn't do too much usually, but if you can do it at an easy pace for extended periods of time, it is huge for fat loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions