Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Replies
-
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Can they tell it's body fat vs. circulating fat?
Nevermind, I read ahead now and saw that you can't.0 -
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
Where would these forums be without pedantry?
Don't think glycolysis is what people are typically meaning when they say glycogen is used first - they appear to be under the impression that some hidden mode switch is thrown as soon as your feet get in motion.
Oooo - my lifting was terrible because I used up all my glycogen with 5 minutes on the elliptical....
TBH unless people are actually participating in endurance sports (as I am) I wish people would just exercise and not worry where the energy was coming from.7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Can they tell it's body fat vs. circulating fat?
No.1 -
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
That tends to happen often in certain situations around here.
I do find this notion of fat adapted people burning fat "faster" interesting, though.
Given, though, that studies have shown that weight loss for calorie and carbohydrate restricted diets show the same results over time, I don't think that the result on body fat stores is anything to write home about, and I'd like to see the basis for these claims.1 -
Flapjack_Mollases wrote: »I was eating 45-50 g's of fat per day. I was losing weight, but my BF % was dropping very slowly. Upped it to 85-100 g's per day, and I feel better, and my BF% seems to be dropping a little quicker than it was. This is purely anecdotal, but it still happened.
Eh. I eat around 25-30 grams of fat a day, get around 100-120 grams of protein and lift. My body fat dropped nicely. By reasonable estimates, it's sitting at 23-24%, which isn't bad for an old broad.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
But that doesn't differentiate between dietary fat and body fat, which is the claim being made. That more stored body fat is being burned by someone who is fat adapted. It smacks of the claims made by those who keto that they lose weight faster consuming the same number of calories as someone who eats higher/high carb. I will note that's not what was claimed here but that's the theory I feel is being pushed.
Correct - gas analysis can't differentiate between either dietary fat / body fat or dietary carbs / glycogen.
That wasn't my point, just answering GottaBurnEmAll's question (which is why I quoted the question and added her profile name tag).
If I went back for another VO2 max test then I would be able to tell whether I am better fat adapted for endurance exercise or not but on its own it's just showing how I fuelled my exercise that day.
That endurance athletes get better adapted isn't really a debate item is it?
Yes yes, I wasn't disputing that, I quoted because GottaBurn was asking about measuring body fat burn, not just fat in general. Sorry for any confusion!
I'm also not disputing that.
I really think this is where you and GottaBurn are confused: Go back and read my posts again. You both keep referring to something that isn't there.... I've not said fat adapted people only burn body fat faster, and not dietary fat. We just burn fat faster. From all sources.
By not ingesting as many carbs, we are using much less glucose for fuel and much more fat. Under the same calorie consumption, we get more energy from fat (because that is what we are eating) and less from carbs (because we are not eating many carbs). There are different processes involved, though the calories still work out in the end.
Despite that I keep making this point, which I don't think you are actually disputing, you continue to mis-read my comments and arguing with something that I'm not saying.
So you just keep packing on pounds from the carbs you eat to balance all that fat you're a perpetual furnace for?
That's assuming that everyone who ketos is like those elite endurance athletes in that study you posted, of course.3 -
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
Where would these forums be without pedantry?
Don't think glycolysis is what people are typically meaning when they say glycogen is used first - they appear to be under the impression that some hidden mode switch is thrown as soon as your feet get in motion.
Oooo - my lifting was terrible because I used up all my glycogen with 5 minutes on the elliptical....
TBH unless people are actually participating in endurance sports (as I am) I wish people would just exercise and not worry where the energy was coming from.
That's what I do. I don't worry about timing, I don't worry about anything.
Well, form and mechanics.
I exercise because I like it. I try to improve because I'm competitive with myself. The nonsense and minutiae? I couldn't care less.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
I am so confused right now. Where is anyone adding body? You have claimed several times to burn body fat faster than non-fat adapted people. Is that not what you are saying?3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
And then you confirmed that that is exactly what you said:
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
Yes, I burn fat faster, from all sources. You just chose to ignore the dietary fat part.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
There's just no point
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
And then you confirmed that that is exactly what you said:
Yep, fat from all sources. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand.
If you want to say that I said I "burn all fat faster" or "burn body and dietary fat faster" - those would both be correct. It would not be fair to say that I'm saying I "burn body fat faster" while excluding dietary fat. Either you can include both or not specify the type of fat. By excluding the dietary component, you infer that I'm saying I ONLY burn body fat faster.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.
What does any of this have to do with your claim to burn it "faster"?
How are we misunderstanding you?
In this case, it's still taking you the whole day to burn that fat. How is that faster? You want us to say... oh, he's burning 2000 calories of fat over a whole day instead of 200 so that's fast? Do you think that matters when the net result 200 in body fat in both scenarios and you're not burning body fat any faster?
And the bottom line, do you think that matters to the OP?7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
That tends to happen often in certain situations around here.
I do find this notion of fat adapted people burning fat "faster" interesting, though.
Given, though, that studies have shown that weight loss for calorie and carbohydrate restricted diets show the same results over time, I don't think that the result on body fat stores is anything to write home about, and I'd like to see the basis for these claims.
I was mostly just goofing around, so I hope the tone was not taken seriously.
I think the "burning fat faster" is more of a semantic misunderstanding. I think the assertion is that the so-called "fat adapted" athlete is burning fat at a faster RATE, not necessarily a greater amount. I think that's his conclusion from the study he presented. It's an uncommon use of terminology that I think is throwing people off.
In a lesser-trained person, fat is *mobilized* from fat stores, but it is not used (oxidized). When more fat is oxidized, it comes from instramuscular triglycerides, not the more well-known fat storage areas. After exercise, depending on the type of exercise, activity the rest of the day, diet intake, etc. everything is sorted out and replenished as necessary. That is one reason why the workout session itself has such little significance. That and the fact that the actual amount of fat oxidized during a typical workout session is trivial at best.
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
Yes, I burn fat faster, from all sources. You just chose to ignore the dietary fat part.
Are you burning bodyfat faster or not? You keep switching it up. How many calories does that burn?9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
I am so confused right now. Where is anyone adding body? You have claimed several times to burn body fat faster than non-fat adapted people. Is that not what you are saying?
I can see that you are confused. That is not exactly what I am saying, as it is taken out of context by separating body fat from dietary fat. I'm saying I burn all fat faster, from all sources. Does that include body fat? Yes. Does that include dietary fat? Yes. The implication GottaBurn is making is that I'm suggesting I ONLY burn body fat faster. In fact, the source of the fat is irrelevant to the point that I use fat faster. I've linked to scientific articles to explain that faster use.0 -
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
Where would these forums be without pedantry?
Don't think glycolysis is what people are typically meaning when they say glycogen is used first - they appear to be under the impression that some hidden mode switch is thrown as soon as your feet get in motion.
Oooo - my lifting was terrible because I used up all my glycogen with 5 minutes on the elliptical....
TBH unless people are actually participating in endurance sports (as I am) I wish people would just exercise and not worry where the energy was coming from.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a mitochondrion.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.
What does any of this have to do with your claim to burn it "faster"?
How are we misunderstanding you?
In this case, it's still taking you the whole day to burn that fat. How is that faster? You want us to say... oh, he's burning 2000 calories of fat over a whole day instead of 200 so that's fast? Do you think that matters when the net result 200 in body fat in both scenarios and you're not burning body fat any faster?
And the bottom line, do you think that matters to the OP?
See the articles I cited previously.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
And then you confirmed that that is exactly what you said:
Yep, fat from all sources. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand.
If you want to say that I said I "burn all fat faster" or "burn body and dietary fat faster" - those would both be correct. It would not be fair to say that I'm saying I "burn body fat faster" while excluding dietary fat. Either you can include both or not specify the type of fat. By excluding the dietary component, you infer that I'm saying I ONLY burn body fat faster.
Speaking of pedantry...
You didn't say what you said because you said it and didn't say it.
12 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
Yes, I burn fat faster, from all sources. You just chose to ignore the dietary fat part.
Are you burning bodyfat faster or not? You keep switching it up. How many calories does that burn?
I burn fat faster, regardless of the source.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
Yes, I burn fat faster, from all sources. You just chose to ignore the dietary fat part.
Are you burning bodyfat faster or not? You keep switching it up. How many calories does that burn?
I burn fat faster, regardless of the source.
And that includes bodyfat, right?
Then how come in your example heremidwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.
Both the fat adapted and not fat adapted person burned the same amount of bodyfat at the same calorie intake? Seems like you don't.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.AAs explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
You said you burn both types of fat faster. I'm not adding anything.As I explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
Yes, I burn fat faster, from all sources. You just chose to ignore the dietary fat part.
Are you burning bodyfat faster or not? You keep switching it up. How many calories does that burn?
I burn fat faster, regardless of the source.
And that includes bodyfat, right?
Then how come in your example heremidwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.
Both the fat adapted and not fat adapted person burned the same amount of bodyfat at the same calorie intake? Seems like you don't.
Again, this is where you are misunderstanding my point. My point is that I burn fat faster. The implication that I'm somehow not burning any dietary fat, but instead burning through my own body fat exclusively seems to be what a lot of people are reading that isn't there.
Source of fat in my example: Diet and body
Use of fat in my example: 2,000 Calories per day
Source of fat in my other example: Body
Use of fat in my other example: 200 Calories per day
The fat-adapted person is burning / using fat faster... fat from all sources.
ETA: I see a lot of people arguing with me over something that I don't think we disagree about, and I'm confused as to why you would argue that. Perhaps if you could all clarify your argument as I've clarified my point in many different ways. I'm not sure how I can be much more clear, so I'm going to suggest you be more clear in what you don't agree about.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.
The word you are adding: body
I am so confused right now. Where is anyone adding body? You have claimed several times to burn body fat faster than non-fat adapted people. Is that not what you are saying?
I can see that you are confused. That is not exactly what I am saying, as it is taken out of context by separating body fat from dietary fat. I'm saying I burn all fat faster, from all sources. Does that include body fat? Yes. Does that include dietary fat? Yes. The implication GottaBurn is making is that I'm suggesting I ONLY burn body fat faster. In fact, the source of the fat is irrelevant to the point that I use fat faster. I've linked to scientific articles to explain that faster use.
Nope, you misunderstand what I'm implying.
You've also only linked to studies which show faster use for elite athletes. How this transfers to someone who's not an elite athlete is something you haven't shown.6 -
I don't even know what the point of this discussion is any more. Or what relevance using fat as a fuel source more efficiently than another human being has to do with eating carbs only in the evening.
This might just be the finest example of pointless MFP pedantry I've ever witnessed.16 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.
Adding what words? You said:Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do.As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat.
What is the mechanism by which fat adapted people burn fat "faster" is there some demand for this to happen? If your weight is stable vis a vis energy balance are you then, as stevencloser asked, storing it faster?
I don't get why you took a swipe at my understanding here. You're making claims without backing them up, and yes, The source is the focus given that I'm sure OP cares about it here. I'd take it you'd want to give advice geared towards that.stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.
You said you burn both dietary fat and body fat faster.
If you burn it faster at the same calorie intake you'd lose more overall bodyfat.
You're saying you don't lose bodyfat faster.
Ergo you must gain more bodyfat too.
This is literally your words I'm using here. There is nothing to ignore, this is literally what you've said.
It still looks like there is a misunderstanding here.
Assume I'm using 2,000 Calories /day and eating 1,800 Calories (ignoring glycogen in both examples and assuming consumption timing is such to prevent additional movement/conversion prior to use):
Fat adapted, eating 1,800 Calories of fat: I burn 2,000 calories of fat in a day, 1,800 from dietary fat and 200 from body fat.
Not fat adapted, eating 1,800 calories of carbs: I burn 1,800 calories of carbs and 200 calories of fat, from body fat.
2,000 Calories of fat use is burning fat, from all sources, faster than 200 Calories of fat use over the same time period. I will repeat, once again, that I'm not saying I lose fat any faster. I just burn it faster.
What does any of this have to do with your claim to burn it "faster"?
How are we misunderstanding you?
In this case, it's still taking you the whole day to burn that fat. How is that faster? You want us to say... oh, he's burning 2000 calories of fat over a whole day instead of 200 so that's fast? Do you think that matters when the net result 200 in body fat in both scenarios and you're not burning body fat any faster?
And the bottom line, do you think that matters to the OP?
See the articles I cited previously.
How exactly do they answer what I asked you?
It's a simple question. In both of your scenarios, you're burning 200 calories of body fat a day. How is one scenario faster than the other? How do you know you're doing this anyway since you're not an elite athlete?
How does this matter for the OP since she's not an elite athlete?4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions