Dogmeat's thoughts on weight loss
Options
Replies
-
Couple of things to point out.
Since muscles are our biggest friend in energy burning (everyone together, kiss your muscles, they deserve it), the crucial question then becomes whether proper resistance training aids in this area. The training alone of course burns energy, as does EPOC, but do these newly retrained muscles burn more energy in rest state, not counting EPOC? Or is this tied to amount of muscle tissue alone?
My instinct says yes, it would make sense that the basic maintenance of more "active" muscle mass would be more costly energy-wise. SHBoss, I'm specifically looking at you for an answer, but anyone else who happens to be sitting on this information can feel free to pipe in.0 -
Fat loss is a covert operation you conduct against your body. We evolved, through natural selection, to be really good at storing energy during periods when there was lots of food, and to survive through times when there wasn't much to eat. Your body is smart, has honestly good intentions at heart, and only tries to help you to survive. So you need to be sneaky around the basterd.
I'm in love. This makes the most sense to me :-) I study forensic evolutionary psychology so that may be why this paragraph stuck out the most hehe, but the post was great. Thank you.0 -
Couple of things to point out.
Since muscles are our biggest friend in energy burning (everyone together, kiss your muscles, they deserve it), the crucial question then becomes whether proper resistance training aids in this area. The training alone of course burns energy, as does EPOC, but do these newly retrained muscles burn more energy in rest state, not counting EPOC? Or is this tied to amount of muscle tissue alone?
My instinct says yes, it would make sense that the basic maintenance of more "active" muscle mass would be more costly energy-wise. SHBoss, I'm specifically looking at you for an answer, but anyone else who happens to be sitting on this information can feel free to pipe in.
yes, they burn more when they are activated, it doesn't go from zero for dormant muscle fibers to 100% though. A lot of it depends on if the muscle does work in an every day capacity. Take a bicep for example. The muscle engages a specific number of fibers for a specific task, depending on how much force is needed for that task. Each fiber burns a certain amount of energy during that work, when the muscle isn't being used, then the fiber doesn't require energy so it really depends on the work done. When you incorporate new fibers (for example weight training to failure), while they are repairing after the initial work, they will use energy, it's a whole long complicated process involving the myosin actin bridge, sarcomeres, muscle spindles, nerve trunks, calcium, ATP, and potassium (along with a whole bunch of other stuff), I don't want to get TOO technical as it's hard for even me to remember sometimes. Someone who has a degree in a sports medicine field would be better suited to explain it deeper. Suffice to say, until you fully incorporate all the existing muscle fibers, you really won't gain any new muscle mass, all you will do is activate existing fibers, the reason why people who start a new program look "bigger" after a few weeks is usually because of additional glycogen (water weight) in and around the muscle area.0 -
Not bad Dogmeat, it's a pretty accurate depiction of what people should be focusing on. And I tend to agree with almost all of it.
Couple of things to point out.
While your body cannot functionally gain muscle mass while in caloric deficit, it can do other things (as noted.) especially when a muscle returns from being mostly dormant (say the quads as an example for someone who did nothing but walk for the last ten years, and then begins to do lower body weight training). Two things happen when you "reactivate" a muscle, the body begins to re-awaken the individual muscle fibers in that muscle, and retrain them, each fiber in a muscle is all or nothing, you either use it or you don't, so inactive fibers need to essentially be retrained as they will atrophy just like a whole muscle will atrophy, when reactivated, the nerve impulses become more efficient, the muscle again begins to store enough glycogen to fuel that extra muscle fiber, and subsequently you become stronger, faster, or more agile with regards to that specific range of motion. This will make you functionally heavier (the extra glycogen), more defined, and less fatigued. All of this happens without actual gains in muscle tissue. This usually happens within the first 4 to 6 weeks, after that, you pretty much maxed out the existing muscle mass and the body will really start trying to build more (if you continue to work the muscle to fatigue). Anyone who says they started weight training and put on 6 lbs of muscle in the first month is technically wrong, but functionally correct because no, they didn't actually add tissue weight, but they did add glycogen, create better muscle usage, and became stronger, which is pretty much what muscle is for right?
So, while not gaining actual muscle fibers -- could be gaining both strength and muscle weight at a calorie deficit.
Makes sense.
I was reading somewhere quite some time ago about an apparent ability for some folks, especially those with a good bit (20% or more) of body fat to actually build muscle at a calorie deficit. Something about the body's ability (this is in hugely simplistic terms, I'm sure) to burn fat as energy and use the nutrients coming in from food to build the muscle. The extra fat sort of simulates a calorie surplus. Is this complete BS?0 -
So, while not gaining actual muscle fibers -- could be gaining both strength and muscle weight at a calorie deficit.
Makes sense.
I was reading somewhere quite some time ago about an apparent ability for some folks, especially those with a good bit (20% or more) of body fat to actually build muscle at a calorie deficit. Something about the body's ability (this is in hugely simplistic terms, I'm sure) to burn fat as energy and use the nutrients coming in from food to build the muscle. The extra fat sort of simulates a calorie surplus. Is this complete BS?
No, in isolated situations it's possible, remember, the body doesn't think in terms of daily calorie levels it thinks more of "how is my energy level RIGHT NOW", for instance, if you work out hard and then eat a good meal afterward, I dare say that if enough of that food is quickly convertible to energy, then you are technically in caloric balance or even caloric surplus, the question becomes whether it's long enough to sustain muscle growth, even though you can be in caloric surplus for a short period after eating, muscle doesn't grow fast, it takes days to add even an ounce of muscle to the body, and that's after a really good workout with a major muscle groups being worked to technical failure. So if you add in a person with a lot of adipose fat, then that might extend the balance needed by hours or even days if they eat regularly enough.
Please note that this would be for a person that's been working out to failure for well over a month though, not someone who just starts. And the window will be relatively small (maybe a month or so) because all that fat will quickly be used up and then you move on to the older, denser, more difficult to burn fat, and when that happens, this concept is no longer applicable.0 -
Thanks SHB. I figured it'd be something like that, it makes sense.
To sum up;
- Your muscle mass doesn't grow on negative calories
- But they can appear larger due to additional water weight
- You can still achieve strength gains (up to a point)
- You can still achieve metabolic boost from weight training
- Low rep, high weight (to a failure) weight training is optimal exercise for fat loss
I'm not really a cardio hater as such, and I think it's good for overall cardiovascular health, but for weight loss, I'd favour weight training over it.0 -
bump.
good to see the science being explained
0 -
Thanks SHB. I figured it'd be something like that, it makes sense.
To sum up;
- Your muscle mass doesn't grow on negative calories
- But they can appear larger due to additional water weight
- You can still achieve strength gains (up to a point)
- You can still achieve metabolic boost from weight training
- Low rep, high weight (to a failure) weight training is optimal exercise for fat loss
I'm not really a cardio hater as such, and I think it's good for overall cardiovascular health, but for weight loss, I'd favour weight training over it.
I agree with all but the last one. I'm really more of a HIIT training, functional training, plyometrics training, and weight training guy (I.E. lots of anaerobic training in my life...ugh!) so this isn't a bias towards cardio on my part (in fact I HATE running, but I still do it 2 to 3 times a week)
BUT
I will say this, the MOST effective way to burn fat is to do cardio assuming 2 things, 1 your heart is healthy enough to sustain moderately vigorous exercise for extended periods, and 2) you are able to work at that moderate pace for periods approaching and exceeding an hour at a time (or totaling an hour or more for a day).
weight training is great for increasing your base metabolic rate by adding active lean tissue to your frame, and yes this activates the production of testosterone and Human Growth Hormone which kicks off fat mobilization and reduces cortisol levels in the body which are all good things, and all help burn more body fat, but not by huge margins. The Metabolic rate is largely set by genetics, and you can influence it by tuning your body, but generally, even putting on 10 lbs of muscle and removing 20 lbs of fat, your metabolic rate is only going to swing by a few hundred a day at most. Therefore, to really trigger fat burning, we need to mobilize lipids for conversion to glucose, this is done in the absence of super high stress periods where cortisol is flooding the system and HGH and testosterone can counteract this stress hormone.
Genetics are just huge in fat loss, similar to why some people are faster than others, and some can run farther or for longer periods than others is mostly due to the amount of type I and type II muscle fibers. You really can't change the ratio of Type I and Type II fibers very much (thus why some people have "runners" bodies, and some people have "sprinters" bodies). the same is true for fat cells, where they are located in relation to metabolic (vascular) pathways and the ease at which blood can access the lipids in the fat cells plays a huge roll in how fast and for how long we can sustain high energy exercises by using fat as a source.
All in all, this was a very convoluted explanation, but to sum it up.
Cardio is very good for fat burning (better on a day to day basis than weight training), but there's only so much you can do, some people just burn fat faster than others genetically speaking. Weight training leads to other (just as important) gains in physical development, and shouldn't be ignored, but it really isn't the best way to lose fat.
Thus my thinking is, if you're trying to lose fat, the best way to do that is with a moderate, sustained cardio heavy schedule. Maybe 4 to 5 days of cardio with 2 to 3 days of weight training, ALWAYS on different days (because the two types of activity mitigate each other's effectiveness). The weight training will activate muscle growth and recovery and bone calcium and potassium replacement (much more important to muscle health than people give it credit for) and as such is important for fat burning, but the cardio is what will really burn the fat.0 -
Best Thread Ever.
0 -
Interesting,,,,,, but to sum it up.
Cardio is very good for fat burning (better on a day to day basis than weight training), ,,,
Thus my thinking is, if you're trying to lose fat, the best way to do that is with a moderate, sustained cardio heavy schedule.,,,
ALWAYS on different days (because the two types of activity mitigate each other's effectiveness). ,,,,,,
When I was losing weight it was with Cardio, and I wasn't weight training much. When I added weight training my weight loss basically stopped.
Later on I was doing "starved" cardio (30 min's elliptical or bike) every morning and then weight training in the evening 3 days a week - and I made good progress on fitness goals but didn't lose much weight. My theory was that the 2 were separated by enough time that they wouldn't cancel each other out. Interesting.0 -
Interesting,,,
When I was losing weight it was with Cardio, and I wasn't weight training much. When I added weight training my weight loss basically stopped.
Later on I was doing "starved" cardio (30 min's elliptical or bike) every morning and then weight training in the evening 3 days a week - and I made good progress on fitness goals but didn't lose much weight. My theory was that the 2 were separated by enough time that they wouldn't cancel each other out. Interesting.
C-man, it's a tough call, like I said, genetics play a big part in this stuff, how fast your body recovers from a workout is largely dependant on the speed with which it can go from high energy consumption for rebuilding, to a more normal energy consumption for moderate cardio, for some that's a few hours, for others that can take a full day. It doesn't really mean anything one way or another, it's just how you are.0 -
Thanks SHB. I figured it'd be something like that, it makes sense.
To sum up;
- Your muscle mass doesn't grow on negative calories
- But they can appear larger due to additional water weight
- You can still achieve strength gains (up to a point)
- You can still achieve metabolic boost from weight training
- Low rep, high weight (to a failure) weight training is optimal exercise for fat loss
I'm not really a cardio hater as such, and I think it's good for overall cardiovascular health, but for weight loss, I'd favour weight training over it.
I agree with all but the last one. I'm really more of a HIIT training, functional training, plyometrics training, and weight training guy (I.E. lots of anaerobic training in my life...ugh!) so this isn't a bias towards cardio on my part (in fact I HATE running, but I still do it 2 to 3 times a week)
BUT
I will say this, the MOST effective way to burn fat is to do cardio assuming 2 things, 1 your heart is healthy enough to sustain moderately vigorous exercise for extended periods, and 2) you are able to work at that moderate pace for periods approaching and exceeding an hour at a time (or totaling an hour or more for a day).
weight training is great for increasing your base metabolic rate by adding active lean tissue to your frame, and yes this activates the production of testosterone and Human Growth Hormone which kicks off fat mobilization and reduces cortisol levels in the body which are all good things, and all help burn more body fat, but not by huge margins. The Metabolic rate is largely set by genetics, and you can influence it by tuning your body, but generally, even putting on 10 lbs of muscle and removing 20 lbs of fat, your metabolic rate is only going to swing by a few hundred a day at most. Therefore, to really trigger fat burning, we need to mobilize lipids for conversion to glucose, this is done in the absence of super high stress periods where cortisol is flooding the system and HGH and testosterone can counteract this stress hormone.
Genetics are just huge in fat loss, similar to why some people are faster than others, and some can run farther or for longer periods than others is mostly due to the amount of type I and type II muscle fibers. You really can't change the ratio of Type I and Type II fibers very much (thus why some people have "runners" bodies, and some people have "sprinters" bodies). the same is true for fat cells, where they are located in relation to metabolic (vascular) pathways and the ease at which blood can access the lipids in the fat cells plays a huge roll in how fast and for how long we can sustain high energy exercises by using fat as a source.
All in all, this was a very convoluted explanation, but to sum it up.
Cardio is very good for fat burning (better on a day to day basis than weight training), but there's only so much you can do, some people just burn fat faster than others genetically speaking. Weight training leads to other (just as important) gains in physical development, and shouldn't be ignored, but it really isn't the best way to lose fat.
Thus my thinking is, if you're trying to lose fat, the best way to do that is with a moderate, sustained cardio heavy schedule. Maybe 4 to 5 days of cardio with 2 to 3 days of weight training, ALWAYS on different days (because the two types of activity mitigate each other's effectiveness). The weight training will activate muscle growth and recovery and bone calcium and potassium replacement (much more important to muscle health than people give it credit for) and as such is important for fat burning, but the cardio is what will really burn the fat.
ALWAYS love to read your posts Banks, easy to understand and always very very helpful!
Thank you!
0 -
I really enjoyed your post. No fluff or advertising. No BS. Thanks for taking the time to share your information.
If I'd advertise one thing, I'd recommend that everyone should read "Brain Over Brawn" by Clint Cornelius (I'm not kidding!). The best part of it is that the author has a free PDF version of the book available from his website. It's the whole book, all 100 pages, no marketing gimmick or preview BS. It's short, to the point, written quite well, and I agree pretty much with everything it says. And it's free.
You can grab a copy from http://brainoverbrawn.com/?page_id=210 -
I'm not arguing with you man. As I said, when I added weight training I stopped losing weight. Maybe I was doing them too close together to get the effects of one or the other or both. I have a long history of being an exceptional "easy gainer" Re: muscle mass, so who knows.
Interesting,,,
When I was losing weight it was with Cardio, and I wasn't weight training much. When I added weight training my weight loss basically stopped.
Later on I was doing "starved" cardio (30 min's elliptical or bike) every morning and then weight training in the evening 3 days a week - and I made good progress on fitness goals but didn't lose much weight. My theory was that the 2 were separated by enough time that they wouldn't cancel each other out. Interesting.
C-man, it's a tough call, like I said, genetics play a big part in this stuff, how fast your body recovers from a workout is largely dependant on the speed with which it can go from high energy consumption for rebuilding, to a more normal energy consumption for moderate cardio, for some that's a few hours, for others that can take a full day. It doesn't really mean anything one way or another, it's just how you are.
Can't wait to get back into this stuff. We have a new grandbaby at home, and winter's been brutal, and excuses excuses excuses,,, I got out on the bike today, and I'm thinking of getting a Ripstik. Now there's some cardio for ya' :happy:0 -
Saving this to my list. Love the discussion. Thanks so much!0
-
I really enjoyed your post. No fluff or advertising. No BS. Thanks for taking the time to share your information.
If I'd advertise one thing, I'd recommend that everyone should read "Brain Over Brawn" by Clint Cornelius (I'm not kidding!). The best part of it is that the author has a free PDF version of the book available from his website. It's the whole book, all 100 pages, no marketing gimmick or preview BS. It's short, to the point, written quite well, and I agree pretty much with everything it says. And it's free.
You can grab a copy from http://brainoverbrawn.com/?page_id=21
Thanks for sharing the link, just reading through it!:drinker:0 -
Good Stuff. Bump.0
-
I really enjoyed your post. No fluff or advertising. No BS. Thanks for taking the time to share your information.
If I'd advertise one thing, I'd recommend that everyone should read "Brain Over Brawn" by Clint Cornelius (I'm not kidding!). The best part of it is that the author has a free PDF version of the book available from his website. It's the whole book, all 100 pages, no marketing gimmick or preview BS. It's short, to the point, written quite well, and I agree pretty much with everything it says. And it's free.
You can grab a copy from http://brainoverbrawn.com/?page_id=21
Awesome. I just downloaded it and put in on my Kindle to read! :bigsmile:0 -
Well, I like what you have to say. And just for laughs' sake, I have to say that the more I see "Muscle weighs more than fat" I want to scream. A pound is a pound folks, whether it's a pound of feathers or a pound of pennies. Or a pound of fat. Go figure.0
-
LOL Ellik,
.. although in all fairness, a pound of muscle is at least twice as dense as a pound of fatt, and therefore half the size, so if I had to choose which one was hanging off my midsection, well, lol..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions