Want to be a fat burner? Exercise!
Replies
-
I've been amazed at the muscle definition I see without any working out! No telling how it would look if I had been able to work it! I love what I see though! First picture was a couple of months ago, the second is from today!
0 -
Lookin' strong, @Karlottap!
I can't resist speculating a little bit on this stuff. We hear a lot of "don't run" advice for a few reasons, but probably the biggest reason is that running doesn't build strength (just endurance). In fact, long-distance running burns muscle, and that's why you see a lot of frail-looking marathon runners.
One thing this study documents is that the LC athletes had more muscle and less body fat than the HC athletes. Why would that be? Let's do the math!
Looking at one data point, LC guy burns 1.2 g/min fat and 0.5 g/min carb. That's 12.8 kcal/min.
HC guys burns 0.6 g/min fat and 1.8 g/min carb. That's 12.6 kcal/min, so about the same calorie burn.
So in a hour, LC guy burns about 72g fat and 30g carbs. HC guy burns 36g fat and 108g carbs.
Where do those carbs come from? Glycogen stores. And those stores are constantly being refilled. How are they refilled? Well these guys aren't eating during their run, so it's all from gluconeogenesis.
The LC guy is going have a lot more free glycerol. They even measured it. 2-3X as much glycerol as the HC guy. And they found that the glycogen restoration rates were similar in both groups.
When glycerol is lower, the other substrate for GNG is protein.
That tells me that running while low carb is profoundly different that running while high carb. Not only do we burn more fat, but we preserve more muscle mass. Potentially a lot more.0 -
I've been amazed at the muscle definition I see without any working out! No telling how it would look if I had been able to work it! I love what I see though! First picture was a couple of months ago, the second is from today!
I noticed muscles in my arms today too
lookin good girl! 0 -
@wabmester great explanations thank you. This will keep me motivated on w2d2 of c25k0
-
Thank you @wabmester! Your explanations help this make a lot more sense and give me something else to begin to focus on as I get closer to starting maintenance.0
-
I think Keto Talk podcasts are excellent! @Sunny_Bunny_ knows her stuff!0
-
Lol. Thanks! I know my podcasts!MerryOne00 wrote: »I think Keto Talk podcasts are excellent! @Sunny_Bunny_ knows her stuff!
I often listen to the same ones several times if I found it very enlightening or maybe difficult to understand on the first pass.
0 -
One of my LC sisters does Carbnite (she's 3 years going strong) and she suggested against cardio work outs. She said she does 1HIIT/week on her carb night morning, 2x week light weights (I'm guessing hand weights) and 1x/week bar weights. Also 1x week yoga/pilates.
I used to lift heavy but I'm nervous about starting up again so I've been sticking with cardio. This study seems to run contrary to her belief that distance and steady state cardio screws up your metabolism.
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the information which is confusing me from an understanding standpoint as all the seemingly contradictory information.0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »One of my LC sisters does Carbnite (she's 3 years going strong) and she suggested against cardio work outs. She said she does 1HIIT/week on her carb night morning, 2x week light weights (I'm guessing hand weights) and 1x/week bar weights. Also 1x week yoga/pilates.
I used to lift heavy but I'm nervous about starting up again so I've been sticking with cardio. This study seems to run contrary to her belief that distance and steady state cardio screws up your metabolism.
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the information which is confusing me from an understanding standpoint as all the seemingly contradictory information.
Mark Sisson's new book actually gives a pretty good explanation - when we are doing steady state cardio, a lot of people are working too hard or not hard enough. There is a fat-burning zone, which occurs at a fairly low heart beat (approximately 220-age), and there is the anaerobic training zone, which you train at a high intensity/low duration (HIIT). Mark says that most athletes train in between, not getting any benefits and basically screwing themselves up instead. Not sure if this is 100% correct, but humans were designed to be persistence hunters, literally running their prey down, so it makes sense that long, steady cardio, when done correctly, should not have a deleterious effect on the body. That being said, I just like to run distances.0 -
The "metabolic damage" thing is usually about cortisol, isn't it? That may be different in LC vs HC. Cortisol seems to signal the liver to make more glucose (which you'll also need for the flight/fight response, which is why it's called the stress hormone). Obviously, LC runners need less glucose.
Personally, I think these guys are nuts to run 100 miles at a time, but at 3 miles a day, I doubt I'm doing any damage, and I haven't lost any muscle mass according to my scale. 0 -
I haven't listened to it yet, but Ketovangelist interviewed Peter Deft, who worked with Phinney and Volek on the FASTER study.
https://www.ketovangelist.com/episode-45-peter-defty-talks-athletic-keto-adaptation/0 -
My top of the HIIT seems to calculate about 159 BPM. My 70% VO2max is between 150 and 155 BPM. Would somewhere in this range be efficient for maybe 25 minutes and keep my cortisol in check?0
-
@wabmester , what I got from Mark's book is that the damage was to the heart and body as well. Basically according to him, the heart works too hard at a medium pace without proper training, so you get problems that way, as well as the stress on your body from cortisol, carb consumption, and so on. The book is super-interesting, you should pick it up if you have a chance.0
-
Damage to heart is thought to be from oxidative stress, mostly. Some studies suggest we have enough endogenous antioxidants to neutralize about an hour of exercise. That's one reason I try to keep my workouts under an hour or so.
The other thing that happens is that your heart actually gets bigger -- "athlete's heart." It's not clear if this is a Good Thing, so I try to avoid that too. Threshold seems to be > 3 hours/week of hard exercise.
Cortisol I don't worry about, unless it's chronic. (I'm mostly low-stress.)0 -
@wabmester, from what I understand about athlete's heart, only one side gets enlarged, and as an effect, your heartbeat gets thrown off, which causes serious problems later in their career. I like running, as I mentioned, and you gotta die of something... so I'll take a heart attack while running a marathon, maybe at 120 years old.1
-
I definitely don't work out that much so I'll take moderate exercise and try to get back into lifting.0
-
@DorkothyParker , we're talking elite marathon and ultra runners here. Personally, I like endurance running and like the idea of running half marathons every week, so I may be at risk, but as I said... gotta die of something.0
-
Yeah, I think high-carb is a much bigger risk than endurance exercise. Really, it's not just about death or disease -- exercise will improve your quality of life. It's really a huge factor.
It's the difference between this:
And this:
0 -
Naaw that bottom pic is beautiful
So, I walk 10ish miles everyday, am I wasting my time. Yes or no?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »So, I walk 10ish miles everyday, am I wasting my time. Yes or no?
You're in Oz, right? People pay good money to go there for walks.
NY Times had a good article on duration and intensity. Basically, the more, the better.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/the-right-dose-of-exercise-for-a-longer-life/0 -
Understandable. Again, my sis said to minimize cardio to 1x week. Like literally no more on her Carbnite program.
I am good with HIIT interval running a couple times a week (eww no circuits blegh!) and weightlifting on separate days more so than long distance running. So if that's efficient/safe, I'll take it.
I'm not asking yes or no to exercise (also I've never been overweight, well I was a fat kid and chubby in HS until about age 22) but rather to find an efficient balance that fits my schedule.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »So, I walk 10ish miles everyday, am I wasting my time. Yes or no?
You're in Oz, right? People pay good money to go there for walks.
NY Times had a good article on duration and intensity. Basically, the more, the better.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/the-right-dose-of-exercise-for-a-longer-life/
Yes, I'm an Aussie. Thanks for the link, will read it voraciously now
Oh, and America has way more pretty spots than us. However I'm not keen to walk with grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolves and such. I'd be a quivering mess and just stay home lol0 -
That is wonderful! You should see about getting your heart rate measured, you might be right in that sweet fat-burning zone, plus you're reaping all the benefits of being active and not sitting on your tush.Christine_72 wrote: »
So, I walk 10ish miles everyday, am I wasting my time. Yes or no?
0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »find an efficient balance that fits my schedule.
Good book is "Body by Science." He argues for 15 minutes once per week. Lift till failure. Hard to beat that for efficiency.
There's no optimal approach. It's what you can stick with, ideally without injury. ALL of my friends who lift weights or run marathons have injuries. Some minor. Some major. So I like low-impact 5K runs, occasional HIIT, and bodyweight exercise. Not optimal, but it works for me.
0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »One of my LC sisters does Carbnite (she's 3 years going strong) and she suggested against cardio work outs. She said she does 1HIIT/week on her carb night morning, 2x week light weights (I'm guessing hand weights) and 1x/week bar weights. Also 1x week yoga/pilates.
I used to lift heavy but I'm nervous about starting up again so I've been sticking with cardio. This study seems to run contrary to her belief that distance and steady state cardio screws up your metabolism.
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the information which is confusing me from an understanding standpoint as all the seemingly contradictory information.
I don't think that is screws up your metabolism, it is just a different process than weights, aerobic vs anaerobic. It depends on what your goals are. If your goal is building muscle, then aerobic exercise isn't going to be that beneficial, because you have to eat more to fuel that exercise. Maybe in the sense of energy balance it "screws up your metabolism" when you have other goals, but it's not bad for you.0 -
@wabmester I have few questions.
How can this be applied or used to guide sedentary people who want to start exercising?
i.e what approach would get me the most fat loss without adverse effects?
Also, earlier in the thread you did some calculation with VO2 and you concluded for a LC to burn 1lb (450g) of fat they need 4.5 hours of exercise. what would the number of hours be for me at 35 yrs old? my MHR is supposed to be 185, my resting is usually around 60 idk if that matters
0 -
Yeah, I think high-carb is a much bigger risk than endurance exercise. Really, it's not just about death or disease -- exercise will improve your quality of life. It's really a huge factor.
It's the difference between this:
And this:
Pics didn't display for me, so in case anyone else had that issue:
>It's the difference between this:
And this:
0 -
@wabmester I have few questions.
How can this be applied or used to guide sedentary people who want to start exercising?
i.e what approach would get me the most fat loss without adverse effects?
Also, earlier in the thread you did some calculation with VO2 and you concluded for a LC to burn 1lb (450g) of fat they need 4.5 hours of exercise. what would the number of hours be for me at 35 yrs old? my MHR is supposed to be 185, my resting is usually around 60 idk if that matters
This study, and my little example, are intended to highlight the differences between LC and HC exercise. The main point is that the fueling is hugely different. All LC exercise will burn more fat and use less glycogen than the same exercise for somebody on a high-carb diet.
Applying this to weight loss still has the usual CICO caveats. In general, the more you exercise, the more you eat. Eating more will negate a lot of the fat-loss benefits, but not all.
So if you choose to exercise, be happy that you're LC, because you're pretty much guaranteed to burn more fat and probably burn less muscle.
It doesn't change anything in terms of guidance to start exercising, but my personal experience is that you'll feel the effects of fat-adaptation if you run. After a while, you'll breath easier, you'll recover more quickly, and you'll feel like you can run forever. That was very motivating for me.
Last summer I ran a 400 meter race that looked a bit like the picture above. My opponents were younger than me, and at the end of the race, they were hunched over trying to catch their breath. I was strutting around like it was effortless. That was motivating. 1 -
@wabmester I have few questions.
How can this be applied or used to guide sedentary people who want to start exercising?
i.e what approach would get me the most fat loss without adverse effects?
Also, earlier in the thread you did some calculation with VO2 and you concluded for a LC to burn 1lb (450g) of fat they need 4.5 hours of exercise. what would the number of hours be for me at 35 yrs old? my MHR is supposed to be 185, my resting is usually around 60 idk if that matters
I would say don't worry about those numbers. Even walking 30 minutes a day is beneficial.0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.