Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Replies
-
Okay, I think I get it. Midwestern is saying -- although how it's relevant to the thread or anything that anyone here cares about it beyond me -- that his body starts burning fat sooner (i.e., faster) than someone who eats more carbs. That fat comes from consumed fat and body fat.
Not sure that that's actually true -- for example, if I eat dinner and then go to sleep I mainly burn fat even if I eat 50% carbs -- but more significantly if we burn the same amount of bodyfat, who cares? Like if he started burning fat at 12:01 am and by 12:00 the following day had burned 500 calories of body fat and 1500 calories of eaten fat, plus some nominal amount of carbs, and I started burning fat at 1 am and did so more sloooowly, but by the end of the day had burned 500 calories of body fat, 450 calories of consumed fat, and the rest of carbs, so what?
Now if we are running I might (or might not) care about how much fat my body can burn at a given speed, but I'd still bet on a Kenyan marathoner who eats 80% carbs over Midwesterner, so eh again. (And didn't OP say in like her second post that her goal was simply weight loss?)10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
In your own example you don't burn bodyfat faster, only dietary fat as in both cases you burn the same amount of bodyfat over the same time. Yet you claimed differently.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, I think I get it. Midwestern is saying -- although how it's relevant to the thread or anything that anyone here cares about it beyond me -- that his body starts burning fat sooner (i.e., faster) than someone who eats more carbs. That fat comes from consumed fat and body fat.
Not sure that that's actually true -- for example, if I eat dinner and then go to sleep I mainly burn fat even if I eat 50% carbs -- but more significantly if we burn the same amount of bodyfat, who cares? Like if he started burning fat at 12:01 am and by 12:00 the following day had burned 500 calories of body fat and 1500 calories of eaten fat, plus some nominal amount of carbs, and I started burning fat at 1 am and did so more sloooowly, but by the end of the day had burned 500 calories of body fat, 450 calories of consumed fat, and the rest of carbs, so what?
Now if we are running I might (or might not) care about how much fat my body can burn at a given speed, but I'd still bet on a Kenyan marathoner who eats 80% carbs over Midwesterner, so eh again. (And didn't OP say in like her second post that her goal was simply weight loss?)
It's not true, substrate utilization works completely different from what he thinks.2 -
Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
In your own example you don't burn bodyfat faster, only dietary fat as in both cases you burn the same amount of bodyfat over the same time. Yet you claimed differently.
You misunderstood my point, and it sounds like you still misunderstand. I burn fat faster than someone who isn't fat adapted in otherwise similar circumstances. That fat can come from diet and body fat. Regardless of source, it is burned faster. I'm not saying I only burn fat from a particular source faster or slower... just that I use / burn fat faster.
ETA: Here's another way to say the same thing: I burn fat faster than someone in a similar circumstance, but eating more carbs instead of fat. Fat used comes from more than one source.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Okay, I think I get it. Midwestern is saying -- although how it's relevant to the thread or anything that anyone here cares about it beyond me -- that his body starts burning fat sooner (i.e., faster) than someone who eats more carbs. That fat comes from consumed fat and body fat.
Not sure that that's actually true -- for example, if I eat dinner and then go to sleep I mainly burn fat even if I eat 50% carbs -- but more significantly if we burn the same amount of bodyfat, who cares? Like if he started burning fat at 12:01 am and by 12:00 the following day had burned 500 calories of body fat and 1500 calories of eaten fat, plus some nominal amount of carbs, and I started burning fat at 1 am and did so more sloooowly, but by the end of the day had burned 500 calories of body fat, 450 calories of consumed fat, and the rest of carbs, so what?
Now if we are running I might (or might not) care about how much fat my body can burn at a given speed, but I'd still bet on a Kenyan marathoner who eats 80% carbs over Midwesterner, so eh again. (And didn't OP say in like her second post that her goal was simply weight loss?)
It's not true, substrate utilization works completely different from what he thinks.
Yeah, I was pretty sure that was the case. But even if he were right, it simply would not matter.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.0 -
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?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.0 -
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?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Not just elite, but ultra endurance. We're talking people who do up to 100 mile races (if you can call that a race) here. Outside of those very specific circumstances, i.e. if higher intensity is required, well...
http://www.mysportscience.com/single-post/2016/12/01/Ketogenic-diets-for-athletes3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).3 -
stevencloser 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?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Not just elite, but ultra endurance. We're talking people who do up to 100 mile races (if you can call that a race) here. Outside of those very specific circumstances, i.e. if higher intensity is required, well...
http://www.mysportscience.com/single-post/2016/12/01/Ketogenic-diets-for-athletes
Interesting site. I found this one to be quite informative as well:
http://www.mysportscience.com/single-post/2015/06/16/A-problem-with-the-reporting-of-effects-of-ketogenic-diet2 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.0 -
I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.0 -
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?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Whats also being lost is that those who eat more fat store more fat. Body fat % or fat mass will not be accelerated when compared to two isocaloric diets where protein is constant.
2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
11 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
No, they have not. Really. I've asked a couple of times, and I honestly cannot recall a post of mine where I ask being quoted and directly answered.
The only thing I do remember you saying is that you weren't losing fat. So I don't know what this whole ish about burning fat has to do with anything since I doubt the OP cares. She has stated her trainer told her one thing, and that her preference is another. That seems to be what she cares about.
If you have answers to the other two questions I asked, can you do me a favor and pull the quotes where you've answered them?Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
No, they have not. Really. I've asked a couple of times, and I honestly cannot recall a post of mine where I ask being quoted and directly answered.
The only thing I do remember you saying is that you weren't losing fat. So I don't know what this whole ish about burning fat has to do with anything since I doubt the OP cares. She has stated her trainer told her one thing, and that her preference is another. That seems to be what she cares about.
If you have answers to the other two questions I asked, can you do me a favor and pull the quotes where you've answered them?Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
No, I didn’t say that I wasn’t losing fat. I said I wouldn’t lose body fat faster.
Here you go:
And again:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).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.
The word you're adding: Only3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
The word you're adding: Only
And implication.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
No, they have not. Really. I've asked a couple of times, and I honestly cannot recall a post of mine where I ask being quoted and directly answered.
The only thing I do remember you saying is that you weren't losing fat. So I don't know what this whole ish about burning fat has to do with anything since I doubt the OP cares. She has stated her trainer told her one thing, and that her preference is another. That seems to be what she cares about.
If you have answers to the other two questions I asked, can you do me a favor and pull the quotes where you've answered them?Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
No, I didn’t say that I wasn’t losing fat. I said I wouldn’t lose body fat faster.
Here you go:
And again:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
You misunderstood my questions.
I'm asking about body fat loss. I thought that was clearly implied given that I asked about what happened to your weight.
Given that I also asked the question:Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
I thought it was also clear that I was talking about fat loss, not burning.
It should also be noted that what was referred to in the statement as "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is an issue with semantics and was referring to fat loss, not oxidation. It refers to the theoretical maximum potential of 31 calories per pound of bodyfat loss per day:
Citation, it's just an article by Lyle McDonald, but he talks about his source: http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
So all of this back and forth has been pointless.
You are talking about oxidation, other people are talking about fat loss.
OP only cares about the trainer's advice because it doesn't align with her preferences.
Now can you clarify what point you're trying to make and why?2 -
Nah man. Carbs are fine. Next time he tells you that ask to see his certification as a nutritionist.4
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
No, they have not. Really. I've asked a couple of times, and I honestly cannot recall a post of mine where I ask being quoted and directly answered.
The only thing I do remember you saying is that you weren't losing fat. So I don't know what this whole ish about burning fat has to do with anything since I doubt the OP cares. She has stated her trainer told her one thing, and that her preference is another. That seems to be what she cares about.
If you have answers to the other two questions I asked, can you do me a favor and pull the quotes where you've answered them?Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
No, I didn’t say that I wasn’t losing fat. I said I wouldn’t lose body fat faster.
Here you go:
And again:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
You misunderstood my questions.
I'm asking about body fat loss. I thought that was clearly implied given that I asked about what happened to your weight.
Given that I also asked the question:Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
I thought it was also clear that I was talking about fat loss, not burning.
It should also be noted that what was referred to in the statement as "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is an issue with semantics and was referring to fat loss, not oxidation. It refers to the theoretical maximum potential of 31 calories per pound of bodyfat loss per day:
Citation, it's just an article by Lyle McDonald, but he talks about his source: http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
So all of this back and forth has been pointless.
You are talking about oxidation, other people are talking about fat loss.
OP only cares about the trainer's advice because it doesn't align with her preferences.
Now can you clarify what point you're trying to make and why?
First off, it looks like you are misquoting me, but I can guess that is an error.
"you can only burn so much fat at a time" clearly is about use (burn) of fat, not body fat loss. If that isn't the case, then it was very poorly worded.
I agree that the back and forth has been pointless. As I've pointed out in more than 1 post, I don't think we actually disagree. You just keep reading something that I'm not actually writing, and then disagreeing with what you think I'm writing. I keep on correcting that mistake, at which point you then argue about whether or not you actually misread.
The original point I was making is that "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is not something we are stuck with. We can increase how much fat we are able to burn over a given time period. I've already explained how, why, and the relevance to OP's question about macro timing.0 -
They were referring to the concept that the body's fat cells can only release so much fat per minute. Not how efficient you are at oxidizing fat.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.
Let's math a little. Basic stuff. Concepts. I won't even use numbers.
Say you can burn more fat in an hour than I can (your claim). If we both burn fat for an hour, you burned more fat than me. THUS, one of two things happens. Either you lose more fat than I do (which you say does not occur) or you are also storing more fat than I am to make up the difference (which is what @StevenCloser keeps trying to explain to you).
In other words, if you are not losing fat faster even though you burn more of it in a given period than someone else, either they are burning it for a longer period of time to catch up (which is contrary to your elite athlete example) or you are storing more than them.
If you are burning more than they are in the same time period and those time periods are equal, you burned more fat (greater quantity).
Not sure how you don't go from "burn fat faster" to greater quantity. If I run faster than you for the same amount of time I go further. If I run faster but we go the same distance, either I didn't run as long or I backed up at some point.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I going to ask the question again... okay, so lets go with this whole silly idea that you're burning dietary and body fat faster. Great. What's happening with your weight compared to a person who is eating the same amount of calories eating a different macro ratio?
Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
All of those questions have already been answered.
No, they have not. Really. I've asked a couple of times, and I honestly cannot recall a post of mine where I ask being quoted and directly answered.
The only thing I do remember you saying is that you weren't losing fat. So I don't know what this whole ish about burning fat has to do with anything since I doubt the OP cares. She has stated her trainer told her one thing, and that her preference is another. That seems to be what she cares about.
If you have answers to the other two questions I asked, can you do me a favor and pull the quotes where you've answered them?Does any of this matter?
Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
No, I didn’t say that I wasn’t losing fat. I said I wouldn’t lose body fat faster.
Here you go:
And again:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
You misunderstood my questions.
I'm asking about body fat loss. I thought that was clearly implied given that I asked about what happened to your weight.
Given that I also asked the question:Given that studies show that over time, any form of diet performs pretty much the same as any other, does this really matter for anyone who isn't doing special sorts of training?
I thought it was also clear that I was talking about fat loss, not burning.
It should also be noted that what was referred to in the statement as "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is an issue with semantics and was referring to fat loss, not oxidation. It refers to the theoretical maximum potential of 31 calories per pound of bodyfat loss per day:
Citation, it's just an article by Lyle McDonald, but he talks about his source: http://mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
So all of this back and forth has been pointless.
You are talking about oxidation, other people are talking about fat loss.
OP only cares about the trainer's advice because it doesn't align with her preferences.
Now can you clarify what point you're trying to make and why?
First off, it looks like you are misquoting me, but I can guess that is an error.
"you can only burn so much fat at a time" clearly is about use (burn) of fat, not body fat loss. If that isn't the case, then it was very poorly worded.
I agree that the back and forth has been pointless. As I've pointed out in more than 1 post, I don't think we actually disagree. You just keep reading something that I'm not actually writing, and then disagreeing with what you think I'm writing. I keep on correcting that mistake, at which point you then argue about whether or not you actually misread.
The original point I was making is that "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is not something we are stuck with. We can increase how much fat we are able to burn over a given time period. I've already explained how, why, and the relevance to OP's question about macro timing.
You keep saying I misunderstand you.
You misunderstand me.
The other thing is that you are hung up on precise wording and I am explaining to you how colloquialism works in the general fitness environment.
I can tell you, in spite of what the actual words parse out to say, that the poster who said "you can only burn so much fat at a time" is referring to fat LOSS not oxidation, because Lyle's 31 calorie rule and maximum deficit amount has been bandied about plenty on this forum. Also, "burning" and "losing" are often used interchangeably.
Now, back to my questions.
It is clear that you are making that point that you can maximize fat oxidation over a given time period. Since you've also made it clear that doing so doesn't increase fat loss, I asked...
Does it matter?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
They were referring to the concept that the body's fat cells can only release so much fat per minute. Not how efficient you are at oxidizing fat.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
That isn't what they said.Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.
Let's math a little. Basic stuff. Concepts. I won't even use numbers.
Say you can burn more fat in an hour than I can (your claim). If we both burn fat for an hour, you burned more fat than me. THUS, one of two things happens. Either you lose more fat than I do (which you say does not occur) or you are also storing more fat than I am to make up the difference (which is what @StevenCloser keeps trying to explain to you).
In other words, if you are not losing fat faster even though you burn more of it in a given period than someone else, either they are burning it for a longer period of time to catch up (which is contrary to your elite athlete example) or you are storing more than them.
If you are burning more than they are in the same time period and those time periods are equal, you burned more fat (greater quantity).
As explained earlier, I'm eating more fat and fewer carbs. I'm burning more fat for energy while the alternative person eating a lot of carbs is using glucose instead.Carlos_421 wrote: »Not sure how you don't go from "burn fat faster" to greater quantity.
I didn't.Carlos_421 wrote: »If I run faster than you for the same amount of time I go further. If I run faster but we go the same distance, either I didn't run as long or I backed up at some point.
As pointed out earlier, burning fat faster does not suggest I burn more body fat.0 -
thelovelyLIZ wrote: »Nah man. Carbs are fine. Next time he tells you that ask to see his certification as a nutritionist Dietitian.
FIFY!
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions