Burn More Fat!
Replies
-
I supposed we could go further into the weeds on this if you really wanted to...
I didn't say, as you put it, that "you are going to lost more body fat if you follow [my] recommendations," but sure, if you want, I'll say it now, because it's true.
When you perform weight training, the muscle gets damaged. When the muscle is damaged, skeletal muscle creatine monophosphate is released. To create more ATP as an immediate energy source without using oxygen, i.e. for a quick burst of energy for the next contraction, the enzyme creatine kinase is used to transfer a phosphate group from a creatine phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule, producing ATP.
In other words: The muscle is eating itself.
During long-term cardio, very little muscle is being damaged and the muscle tissue is pulling its energy from the triglyceride (fat) stores.
I'm not sure how you're using muscle damage during training as a means to justify what happens to body fat. Can you clarify that for me please?
During weight training, muscle breakdown occurs, which is provable by doing a blood test and noting elevated levels of skeletal muscle creatine phosphate (as opposed to elevated levels of cardiac creatine phosphate... if that's elevated, you're probably having a heart attack). Since the skeletal muscle creatine phosphate is present, creatine kinase moves its phosphate group to an ADP molecule to create ATP as an immediate source of energy to restore the muscle cell and give it energy to contract again.
Aerobic respiration against a triglyceride creates far more ATP (29 more molecules, actually), but it takes longer and the oxygen probably isn't immediately available. Hence, the use of the muscle breakdown (creatine phosphate) rather than pulling from fat during the exercise.
And I think here is where you and I are getting entangled with each other and I hope it helps clarify:
You may burn more body fat outside of the exercise period, of course, but during the exercise, you'll predominantly burn fat - instead of muscle - as you work out with cardio as opposed to an exercise that causes muscle breakdown.
If we're talking about fat loss, outside of the workout, it comes down to diet, mostly. We just talked about that. But you can burn additional fat with long-term, steady-state cardio that does not involve muscle breakdown.
I hope that's more clear?
Just to clarify then, you believe that long term steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?
Again... I'm not comparing the two.
Ultimately, though, you are. Since you're losing weight, you're losing both fat and lean mass. If you claim to burn more fat, that implies that lean mass loss is less, given the same Caloric deficit.
^ This is an important distinction to make too. If you believe that a given training modality is better because it will cause greater fat loss given the SAME energy deficit, you are implying a muscle protein sparing effect.0 -
Man, y'all are missing the point here.
I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).
I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."
I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.
No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means weight loss. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.
If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.
If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.
I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.0 -
Anyway, as is typical with the gym community, solid proof - posted with a source and everything - is met with "I don't believe you"s and that's fine. At the end of the day it's still going to be how your body works. Have a great day, everyone. When in doubt, https://scholar.google.com (among other engines) is your friend.
But what is the practical point you are making? That's the disconnect.
I do very long duration cardio (longest 9 hours) so substrate utilisation (and exercise fuelling in general) is important to me but not to people looking to lose weight (fat).1 -
Man, y'all are missing the point here.
I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).
I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."
I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.
No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means [/i]weight loss[/i]. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.
If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.
If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.
I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.
If you are in a deficit with lifting only do you think you will end up with more or less muscle vs being in a deficit with cardio only?
0 -
And since it apparently needs to be stated... if I didn't write it, I didn't imply it either.0
-
Man, y'all are missing the point here.
I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).
I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."
I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.
No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means [/i]weight loss[/i]. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.
If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.
If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.
I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.
If you are in a deficit with lifting only do you think you will end up with more or less muscle vs being in a deficit with cardio only?
Really that just comes down to how long you're in deficit, so the answer is it probably depends... eventually you're going to lose that muscle if you're not using it because the body knows that (muscle atrophy generally occurs beginning at two weeks of non-use). I'd keep lifting. Maintain the demand to keep the muscle as intact as possible. If I was cutting, I'd keep the lifting at a maintenance level instead of trying to go higher, because in deficit, the chance of rebuilding muscle tissue that got more damaged lifting heavier than last week is lower than muscle that was damaged just lifting what your current levels already are.
^^ But that's not from the book. That's just me saying "I think and I am not sure"0 -
Suppose I have two cases:
1) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week.
2) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week and low intensity long duration cardio.
Matched deficit size so the same amount of WEIGHT (NOT FAT) is lost in each example. Same person, in this hypothetical model. Lets assume it's 12 weeks in duration.
Do you believe #2 will lose MORE FAT even though the same WEIGHT is lost between the two groups?0 -
I am really trying to understand what point you are trying to make. Even if you burn more intra-exercise, it will be quickly replenished after your next meal.1
-
No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means weight loss. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.
If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.
I agree that you will lose weight on the scale which will be a combination of fat and lean mass.
I do not agree with your second point at all. I dieted down from 23% bodyfat to 14% bodyfat and did no cardio at all. I also lost little to no LBM.0 -
Here's the biggest problem, IMO. You put this thread in the "General Diet and Weight Loss Forum." So, of course people are responding in terms of weight loss, since it obviously has nothing to do with diet. If you're not actually talking about weight loss, you put it in the wrong place.0
-
Here's the biggest problem, IMO. You put this thread in the "General Diet and Weight Loss Forum." So, of course people are responding in terms of weight loss, since it obviously has nothing to do with diet. If you're not actually talking about weight loss, you put it in the wrong place.
That is an easy thing to fix.0 -
The biggest problem I have with all of this besides some misunderstanding of the actual point of the post is that the OP is assuming that what happens to substrates DURING EXERCISE is reflective of what happens to things over larger periods of time.
So for example even if a given exercise damages muscle tissue it doesn't mean that this exercise leads to muscle loss as evident with both HIIT and resistance training.
Just because an exercise utilizes fat as a primary substrate during the training bout does not mean it leads to greater changes in whole body fat mass vs an exercise that does not utilize fat as a primary substrate and evidence of this would again be in a comparison between fasted and fed cardio even though I know that's not the topic being discussed.
You cannot look at what happens during the training bout and extrapolate what happens over weeks and months of using that training because of what happens outside of the training bout.1 -
Suppose I have two cases:
1) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week.
2) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week and low intensity long duration cardio.
Matched deficit size so the same amount of WEIGHT (NOT FAT) is lost in each example. Same person, in this hypothetical model. Lets assume it's 12 weeks in duration.
Do you believe #2 will lose MORE FAT even though the same WEIGHT is lost between the two groups?
That's interesting... I hadn't thought of it that way. So the cardio is not adding a greater than 500C deficit? If not, I might think they'd be about the same... So I completely see your argument about deficit now.Here's the biggest problem, IMO. You put this thread in the "General Diet and Weight Loss Forum." So, of course people are responding in terms of weight loss, since it obviously has nothing to do with diet. If you're not actually talking about weight loss, you put it in the wrong place.
Well the very first reply was me saying I may have put it in the wrong section.0 -
I guess this can be deleted, then. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Thank you for the replies.0
-
Here's the biggest problem, IMO. You put this thread in the "General Diet and Weight Loss Forum." So, of course people are responding in terms of weight loss, since it obviously has nothing to do with diet. If you're not actually talking about weight loss, you put it in the wrong place.
That is an easy thing to fix.
@psulemon
Go on - use your superpowers!
0 -
I'd also like to add here that (at least so far) nobody is throwing out personal attacks. So please don't let disagreement get in the way of a good discussion.0
-
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
I vote leave it up. Not to embarrass you (or anyone), but to show others that it's OK to have an "a-ha" moment.
FWIW: I applaud you being open to the idea that you... weren't "wrong," but maybe were open to new thoughts.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.0 -
I've always had great success doing one hour of moderate cardio on the elliptical to burn fat. I learned that long ago from a diet... The Six Week Body Makeover.. which worked super well for me.
According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can. I've never done the circuit training.. and bursts of faster cardio mixed with slow like some do now. I stick with this. it works.
I've heard a lot of critics of this method.. but i'm not going to reinvent the wheel.0 -
I wouldn't be embarrassed at all dude. It shows you're willing to have a discussion.2
-
Actually I have a diagram that explains that by comparing different runners on a track, if you're interested...elisa123gal wrote: »I've always had great success doing one hour of moderate cardio on the elliptical to burn fat. I learned that long ago from a diet... The Six Week Body Makeover.. which worked super well for me.
According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can. I've never done the circuit training.. and bursts of faster cardio mixed with slow like some do now. I stick with this. it works.
I've heard a lot of critics of this method.. but i'm not going to reinvent the wheel.I wouldn't be embarrassed at all dude. It shows you're willing to have a discussion.
There should still be a "sheepish" emoticon.
0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.1 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.
I've certainly been wrong as hell plenty of times.0 -
It's all good discussion - makes a change from people thinking a bit of LISS will transform them into a bag of bones or the mirror image of an elite marathon runner......
2 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.
Guilty.
eta: And we can always use another post reassuring people that they won't get HYOOOOOOGE from lifting weights a few times a week.0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can.
Well, for anyone interested, according to "the book," available ATP and phosphate transfer is used in the first 5-6 seconds, such as a 50-meter run.
After that's used up, the muscles begin glycolysis as a short-term energy source.
Finally, around minutes 5-6 (after 400 meter run), aerobic respiration kicks off as the long-term, primary energy source (without going anaerobic).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 439 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions