Abs abs please i want tight core
Options
Replies
-
Why does it sound dismissive? Especially when it's true? Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking? Why? Because physical activity will always burn glycogen first before even touching fat stores. At rest the body burns fat EXCLUSIVELY for energy usage.hamptontom wrote: »I understand what you're saying, Niner...but when you say to someone "you don't need to do cardio to burn fat", it sounds dismissive...and could possibly be simplified to "you don't need to do cardio".
It's really hard to believe that I'd have gotten the results I've gotten if I hadn't been doing it these past few months.
I'm NEVER against exercise of any type. But I'm not going to pacify someone by saying "hey doing all that cardio means you're burning fat" because it's basically not true.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
My calories is already deficit enough as hell . I ate whole plant based food 80% all the time at about 1000cal per day! I was told that it is too little and i need at least 1200. Thats what confuse me. I can be toned in other body parts just not the abs.0
-
-
Based on my previous "diet" experience where i ate too little for my own good WITH NO EXERCISE. Yes i was thinner and lighter but not toned. I was a "skinny fat" my body was small but you could still see the belly pooch etc. I dont want to be skinny Flabby stick i want to be toned.0
-
-
From my perspective, you can easily lose weight by reducing your calorie but your body will still be jiggly without exercise. Besides you will put on weight if you eat just a little more than your usual portion. The jiggly part of my stomach is on my lower abdominal, the rest is okay.I can even see my ribcage sometimes early in the morning which disgusted me.0
-
Just reiterating again, if you want to see more definition in your ab area ("toned") you need to lower your overall body fat %. The chart above will give you some guidance.
Have you had your body fat % measured? And not by a scale, but by calipers, Bod pod, hydrostatic underwater, etc.?
You can't reach the goal you want without knowing where you're starting from.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
Why does it sound dismissive? Especially when it's true? Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking? Why? Because physical activity will always burn glycogen first before even touching fat stores. At rest the body burns fat EXCLUSIVELY for energy usage.
No, I didn't know that...but it certainly makes sense. It also helps explain why I lose at a slightly higher rate when I curtail eating after 8pm...especially in the time that I've been going to the gym at night.I'm NEVER against exercise of any type. But I'm not going to pacify someone by saying "hey doing all that cardio means you're burning fat" because it's basically not true.
Alright...I think we've veered off into that place where forum discussions often end up. Let me try to hit the "reset" button, here.
I would never suggest, especially considering your profession, that you should suggest something in any scenario that isn't true. So let's reframe this statement, in a way that maybe we both can agree upon:
- Cardio doesn't burn fat from your existing fat stores. The only way that's lost is by eating at a deficit.
BUT -
would it not also be accurate to say:
-Cardio doesn't burn existing fat - it burns off calories that might have otherwise been stored as fat?
Please understand that I'm not trying to contradict your statements, and I'm not trying to call you out on anything - I'm not really in a position to argue with you on ANY of this, believe me. But - and correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to stand to reason that incorporating some form of cardio could only be helpful to pretty much ANYONE that identified weight loss as a fitness goal, since it burns off calories that wouldn't have been burned off in its absence.
The reason I said it sounds dismissive is because when you say to someone - especially someone who's coming here asking for advice - that "they don't need to do cardio to burn fat"...well, OK. The facts support that statement. But you have to see where that could be interpreted negatively...right?
That's all I'm tryin' to say, man. At first blush, it comes off as a cardio brush-off. I get that it wasn't your intention. I'm just trying to explain why I heard it the way I did.0 -
Yea i think i need to measure my bodyfat. Thanks everyone0
-
Some of the most fit lean people I know do cardio. So by no means am I ever against it. In fact I would encourage people to do it because in most cases, it doesn't take much training to learn (how hard can it be to teach someone to run or use an elliptical?) and it's more than likely cost effective to the person.hamptontom wrote: »
Why does it sound dismissive? Especially when it's true? Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking? Why? Because physical activity will always burn glycogen first before even touching fat stores. At rest the body burns fat EXCLUSIVELY for energy usage.
No, I didn't know that...but it certainly makes sense. It also helps explain why I lose at a slightly higher rate when I curtail eating after 8pm...especially in the time that I've been going to the gym at night.I'm NEVER against exercise of any type. But I'm not going to pacify someone by saying "hey doing all that cardio means you're burning fat" because it's basically not true.
Alright...I think we've veered off into that place where forum discussions often end up. Let me try to hit the "reset" button, here.
I would never suggest, especially considering your profession, that you should suggest something in any scenario that isn't true. So let's reframe this statement, in a way that maybe we both can agree upon:
- Cardio doesn't burn fat from your existing fat stores. The only way that's lost is by eating at a deficit.
BUT -
would it not also be accurate to say:
-Cardio doesn't burn existing fat - it burns off calories that might have otherwise been stored as fat?
Please understand that I'm not trying to contradict your statements, and I'm not trying to call you out on anything - I'm not really in a position to argue with you on ANY of this, believe me. But - and correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to stand to reason that incorporating some form of cardio could only be helpful to pretty much ANYONE that identified weight loss as a fitness goal, since it burns off calories that wouldn't have been burned off in its absence.
The reason I said it sounds dismissive is because when you say to someone - especially someone who's coming here asking for advice - that "they don't need to do cardio to burn fat"...well, OK. The facts support that statement. But you have to see where that could be interpreted negatively...right?
That's all I'm tryin' to say, man. At first blush, it comes off as a cardio brush-off. I get that it wasn't your intention. I'm just trying to explain why I heard it the way I did.
If it sounded negative...................then I apologize. I would have said the same thing if someone would have asked about weight lifting, martial arts, horseback riding, etc. to burn fat.
Exercise IMO is always important regardless of what it is. It really does the body good and helps with metabolic rate especially if someone is reducing calories to lose weight (since metabolic rate automatically slows when the body senses deficit).
I was merely speaking from a physiological point of view when it comes to weight/fat loss, that exercise isn't needed to achieve it. Being in shape and having better body composition would definitely need exercise though.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Why does it sound dismissive? Especially when it's true? Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking? Why? Because physical activity will always burn glycogen first before even touching fat stores. At rest the body burns fat EXCLUSIVELY for energy usage.hamptontom wrote: »I understand what you're saying, Niner...but when you say to someone "you don't need to do cardio to burn fat", it sounds dismissive...and could possibly be simplified to "you don't need to do cardio".
It's really hard to believe that I'd have gotten the results I've gotten if I hadn't been doing it these past few months.
I'm NEVER against exercise of any type. But I'm not going to pacify someone by saying "hey doing all that cardio means you're burning fat" because it's basically not true.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Huh, I didn't know you don't use glycogen when resting.0 -
hamptontom wrote: »
Why does it sound dismissive? Especially when it's true? Did you know you burn more fat sleeping 8 hours, than you would doing 2 hours of hiking? Why? Because physical activity will always burn glycogen first before even touching fat stores. At rest the body burns fat EXCLUSIVELY for energy usage.
No, I didn't know that...but it certainly makes sense. It also helps explain why I lose at a slightly higher rate when I curtail eating after 8pm...especially in the time that I've been going to the gym at night.I'm NEVER against exercise of any type. But I'm not going to pacify someone by saying "hey doing all that cardio means you're burning fat" because it's basically not true.
Alright...I think we've veered off into that place where forum discussions often end up. Let me try to hit the "reset" button, here.
I would never suggest, especially considering your profession, that you should suggest something in any scenario that isn't true. So let's reframe this statement, in a way that maybe we both can agree upon:
- Cardio doesn't burn fat from your existing fat stores. The only way that's lost is by eating at a deficit.
BUT -
would it not also be accurate to say:
-Cardio doesn't burn existing fat - it burns off calories that might have otherwise been stored as fat?
Please understand that I'm not trying to contradict your statements, and I'm not trying to call you out on anything - I'm not really in a position to argue with you on ANY of this, believe me. But - and correct me if I'm wrong - it seems to stand to reason that incorporating some form of cardio could only be helpful to pretty much ANYONE that identified weight loss as a fitness goal, since it burns off calories that wouldn't have been burned off in its absence.
The reason I said it sounds dismissive is because when you say to someone - especially someone who's coming here asking for advice - that "they don't need to do cardio to burn fat"...well, OK. The facts support that statement. But you have to see where that could be interpreted negatively...right?
That's all I'm tryin' to say, man. At first blush, it comes off as a cardio brush-off. I get that it wasn't your intention. I'm just trying to explain why I heard it the way I did.
If someone wants to use cardio to create a larger deficit then it certain will help with fat loss but they could still lose that fat through eating alone. Burning 500 in exercise or eating 500 fewer calories come out the same.
Of course, cardio has awesome health benefits and I certainly am not against it. Just pointing out that it's not what directly causes fat loss; it's overall deficit. As I said, I ate all mine back and lost at a steady rate.
It's a good thing for Niner, or anyone, to point out because so many folks come on MFP and burn out killing themselves with cardio that they hate because they feel like it's what they have to do. Realizing that it's not imperative to weightloss frees folks to explore other options for fitness even if they still want incorporate some cardio in there too.
Congrats on your loss though!
0 -
I have literally not done an ab exercise in a deficit...Compound lifts, eat at a deficit to lose fat. Don't waste your time.0
-
It's just a body type, OP. I can see my ribs quite clearly, but my lower tummy is still more covered with a fat layer than my other abs. I like all the other definition in my abs and don't mind a bit of softness lower, myself. If you don't have any definition anywhere in your abs after what you are doing, you need to lower your bodyfat, yeah.
Or possibly grow your abs, if you are at a low enough bodyfat percent. Use weights and eat at maintenance at least if you want to make them actually bigger and to show that way. Maybe yours are really working but not big at all.0 -
Carbohydrates’ Role in the Body
Energy source- Energy from glucose and muscle glycogen breakdown ultimately powers muscle action (particularly high-intensity exercise) and other more “silent” forms of biologic work. For physically active people, adequate daily carbohydrate intake maintains the body’s limited glycogen stores. However, more is not necessarily better; if dietary carbohydrate intake exceeds the cells’ capacity to store glycogen, the carbohydrate excess readily converts to fat, thus triggering an increase in the body’s total fat content.
Protein sparer- Adequate carbohydrate intake preserves tissue proteins. Normally, protein contributes to tissue maintenance, repair, and growth and as a minor nutrient energy source. With reduced glycogen reserves, gluconeogenesis synthesizes glucose from protein (amino acids) and the glycerol portion of the fat molecule. This metabolic process increases carbohydrate availability and maintains plasma glucose levels under three conditions:
a. Dietary restriction b. Prolonged exercise c. Repeated bouts of intense training
Metabolic primer- By products of carbohydrate breakdown serve as a primer to facilitate the body’s use of fat for energy, particularly in the liver. Insufficient carbohydrate metabolism (either through limitations in glucose transport into the cell, as occurs in diabetes, or glycogen depletion through inadequate diet or prolonged exercise) increases dependence on fat utilization for energy. When this happens, the body cannot generate a sustained high level of aerobic energy transfer from fat-only metabolism. This consequence reduces an individual’s maximum exercise intensity.
0 -
If someone wants to use cardio to create a larger deficit then it certain will help with fat loss but they could still lose that fat through eating alone. Burning 500 in exercise or eating 500 fewer calories come out the same.
I gotta tell ya...this conversation has been really enlightening - and I say that without the slightest trace of sarcasm. Because before this came up, I don't think I gave a second thought to ANY of the deeper specifics regarding why I've been doing cardio in the first place. I knew that it was good for my heart, good for my endurance, and was improving my general health...and i knew that it was burning calories - but it never occurred to me to consider WHAT it was burning. I never really gave it a second thought, other than the assumption that whatever I was burning off in cardio wasn't gonna go straight to the flesh-colored fanny pack that used to be my gut.
The other thing that's occurring to me is that it's a good thing that there's more than one way to go about this. I've been better than I'd have ever thought I'd be about not eating back exercise calories, and staying within my numbers - but still, I'm one of those people that wouldn't think twice about putting another half-hour in on the elliptical if the guys at the office ordered pizza and I wanted to grab a slice. For other people, though, I can see where it'd be a lot easier to deny themselves the extra calories during the course of a day to avoid having to work it off.
Different strokes and all.
0 -
hamptontom wrote: »
If someone wants to use cardio to create a larger deficit then it certain will help with fat loss but they could still lose that fat through eating alone. Burning 500 in exercise or eating 500 fewer calories come out the same.
I gotta tell ya...this conversation has been really enlightening - and I say that without the slightest trace of sarcasm. Because before this came up, I don't think I gave a second thought to ANY of the deeper specifics regarding why I've been doing cardio in the first place. I knew that it was good for my heart, good for my endurance, and was improving my general health...and i knew that it was burning calories - but it never occurred to me to consider WHAT it was burning. I never really gave it a second thought, other than the assumption that whatever I was burning off in cardio wasn't gonna go straight to the flesh-colored fanny pack that used to be my gut.
The other thing that's occurring to me is that it's a good thing that there's more than one way to go about this. I've been better than I'd have ever thought I'd be about not eating back exercise calories, and staying within my numbers - but still, I'm one of those people that wouldn't think twice about putting another half-hour in on the elliptical if the guys at the office ordered pizza and I wanted to grab a slice. For other people, though, I can see where it'd be a lot easier to deny themselves the extra calories during the course of a day to avoid having to work it off.
Different strokes and all.
I find the bold part interesting. I considered eating back my exercise calories to be staying within my numbers. I wanted to lose .5 lbs a week so I set my goal to that, lifted primarily, and then ate back my burns. That allowed me to stay at .5 lb loss per week while still having good workout sessions and getting to eat more; I don't like restricted diets. I too would go for the pizza! I do the same now that I'm in maintenance.
Please don't read this as me disagreeing with you, as we both said, there are many ways to go about this. It's interesting to see how folks view what they're doing.0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »My calories is already deficit enough as hell . I ate whole plant based food 80% all the time at about 1000cal per day! I was told that it is too little and i need at least 1200. Thats what confuse me. I can be toned in other body parts just not the abs.
well.. i actually think youre starving
0 -
LeahEstevez4 wrote: »doralim1990 wrote: »My calories is already deficit enough as hell . I ate whole plant based food 80% all the time at about 1000cal per day! I was told that it is too little and i need at least 1200. Thats what confuse me. I can be toned in other body parts just not the abs.
well.. i actually think youre starving
Because i eat mostly plant based, veggie, fruit, potatoes, oats. I do get to eat alot to hit 1000. I dont think i could smash in another 200-300. Except from high fat food like avocado or nuts. That would be easy.
0 -
I think you are very confused, OP. Maybe this thread will be helpful.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1161603/so-you-want-a-nice-stomach/p10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions