Cardio isn't for "fat burning".

Options
1246731

Replies

  • ilex70
    ilex70 Posts: 727 Member
    Options
    Ya...CICO.

    But I can't help but hope that the increased blood flow will help shift that stubborn lower body fat just a little bit quicker. :)
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    gia07 wrote: »
    Isn't there an increase in a person's metabolic rate from consistent/daily/weekly exercising? This is a huge plus in my book just to exercise (but I am a bit old) LOL

    As the above poster said above, I have lost weight, maintained and gained weight whilst exercising.

    IMHO I think TV shows, magazines, internet jargon, make it out to believe that you must "exercise to loose weight", or at least that is the way it comes across. So people jump on MFP setup a calorie deficit and jump right on the forums and always ask "how many calories do I need to burn a day to loose weight", or "what type of cardio do I need to do to loose XXX pounds by XXX date?"

    Who actually asks how can I improve my cardiovascular health to compliment my weight loss? Not very many.

    *raises hand*

    In fact I cared more about this than the actual weight but they're both side-kicks and fixing one helps the other. That is I first cared about getting less winded at 11k+ feet and that triggered my desire to fix other things. Generally however..... "Wedding in 6 weeks! ZOMG!"

    I guess I should stop posting again..

    Aww, people do seem a bit grumpier this week.

    tr6J5nX25.gif

    Hang in there, probably just all the diet soda threads...
  • robininfl
    robininfl Posts: 1,137 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    Actually, the addition of exercise is much more effective in getting rid of visceral fat(you know, the stuff associated with heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc) than deficit alone.
    Is there a source for that claim?
    Not senecarr, but a quick pubmed search gave me these:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730190/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139333/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3214001/


    And one indicating that type of weight loss diet does not matter, in terms of losing visceral vs. other fat (or muscle)

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278241/
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?

    You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.

    There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
    Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.
    I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?

    You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.

    There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
    Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.
    I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.

    Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
  • shor0814
    shor0814 Posts: 559 Member
    Options
    Lord007 wrote: »
    While the OP is correct, it's a bit misleading. One should do 20+ minutes of cardio to be fat burning. Up to the 20 minute mark (approximately), you're basically burning off the sugars stored in your blood and muscle lining. the general statement is correct that if you are at a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose fat.

    No form of exercise is required to reach this state- you could sit still and reach that state as long as you weren't replenishing glycogen whilst you were doing it. So, if exercise is not required for fat burning we are back to the position that @ninerbuff (OP) stated.

    I think the comment is intending something else and not that exercise is necessary for fat or glycogen burning. Something like:

    If you want to make cardio a fat burning exercise you can, if you do it long enough to use up the glycogen stores first and then it becomes fat burning.

    I am not competent to judge the accuracy of the statement but I did interpret it that way.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    Options
    shor0814 wrote: »
    Lord007 wrote: »
    While the OP is correct, it's a bit misleading. One should do 20+ minutes of cardio to be fat burning. Up to the 20 minute mark (approximately), you're basically burning off the sugars stored in your blood and muscle lining. the general statement is correct that if you are at a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose fat.

    No form of exercise is required to reach this state- you could sit still and reach that state as long as you weren't replenishing glycogen whilst you were doing it. So, if exercise is not required for fat burning we are back to the position that @ninerbuff (OP) stated.

    I think the comment is intending something else and not that exercise is necessary for fat or glycogen burning. Something like:

    If you want to make cardio a fat burning exercise you can, if you do it long enough to use up the glycogen stores first and then it becomes fat burning.

    I am not competent to judge the accuracy of the statement but I did interpret it that way.

    Oh I see, yes. That makes sense. Thanks
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?

    You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.

    There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
    Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.
    I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.

    Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
    I'm trying to cut down on excess blood sugar floating around in my bloodstream, since my overall blood sugar level is too high.

  • Chieflrg
    Chieflrg Posts: 9,097 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    Surprised how this isn't common knowledge these days.
    It's the stupid magazines and diet industry that screws it up.

    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

    9285851.png

    Like you, I've seen this exploited for well over three decades.
    I was talking to a fitness model yesterday at gym about a specific exercise she was doing to possibly help me when I catch behind the plate for baseball. F.M. says my coach gave me this exercise to burn fat around the glutes...[/endconvo]
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    _Waffle_ wrote: »
    For low intensity exercises, is it body fat or dietary fat burned, or both?

    You'll do better if you just think of it as energy. During lower intensity exercises the body will pull some from the muscle cells themselves, and some from blood stream. The blood stream energy will be replenished by energy stored in your liver. Once that is used up it will then use stored body fat for energy. This is released into your blood and is no different than the dietary fat that you've eaten that day which might be remaining. It doesn't wait until your totally out of energy so the stored fat/energy is mixed in with things you may have eaten recently.

    There are strategies for helping your body to prefer stored fat over glycogen but that includes starting the exercise in a fasted state and doing 90+ minutes of exercise. You can run out of glycogen energy storage in your cells too but that's all really outside the scope of this discussion.
    Ok thanks guys. I understood the glycogen/carbs being burned for higher intensity exercise but the fat component for lower intensity exercise is what had me confused.
    I'm trying to get my body to burn through glycogen more, so it seems like I need to stick to higher intensity exercise.

    Why are you trying to burn through glycogen more? Is that for training purposes?
    I'm trying to cut down on excess blood sugar floating around in my bloodstream, since my overall blood sugar level is too high.

    Have you discussed this with your doctor and learned the difference between glycogen in the muscle and blood glucose numbers?
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Chieflrg wrote: »
    Surprised how this isn't common knowledge these days.
    It's the stupid magazines and diet industry that screws it up.

    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

    9285851.png

    Like you, I've seen this exploited for well over three decades.
    I was talking to a fitness model yesterday at gym about a specific exercise she was doing to possibly help me when I catch behind the plate for baseball. F.M. says my coach gave me this exercise to burn fat around the glutes...[/endconvo]

    Did you at least get her number? ;)
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    Actually, the addition of exercise is much more effective in getting rid of visceral fat(you know, the stuff associated with heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc) than deficit alone.
    Is there a source for that claim?

    I was actually going to ask about this - Does visceral fat behave the same way as other fat? I've read so many silly magazine, clickbait style articles I'm not sure if I've ever read anything legit on it anymore.

    It behaves the same as other fat but it's about the fastest burning fat because it tends to have more beta receptors than other areas, particularly lower body fat. My understanding is that it evolved as a fast energy track for activities such as hunting but that could be just speculation.

    I've heard similar claims, particularly as evolutionary claims about sex differences - that men have greater visceral deposition to facilitate this. This tends to come in passing without a cited source.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Not sure if this was just a UK ad but I loved it

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxzdo8FfrW0

    That made me laugh and feel uncomfortable at the same time.

    There was an add series similar to that in the US - where people would come across random piles of flesh and comment about how someone had lost their beer belly, spare tire, bubble butt, etc... So gross, but it was actually somewhat motivating (though obviously not for purchasing the product, since I can't remember what the commercial was actually for).

    The commercial was actually a government healthy activities advert, not exactly a product.
    http://www.adforum.com/creative-work/ad/player/39303/love-handles/healthy-america
    ^That's one of them. The one that I always remember was the kids finding some part on the beach.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,594 Member
    Options
    lizlemon4 wrote: »
    People these days eat straight up crap. Chips, soda, hot dogs, McDonald's, and everything else. Never a veggie or a fruit oh how about some old fashioned water and a good run around the block. Take account for the things you consume or they will consume you with obesity and disease.
    Not necessarily. The prison population DOESN'T get any high quality food at all, yet there isn't an obesity problem and for some reason they aren't dropping like flies from years of low nutrient eating.

    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,594 Member
    Options
    Lord007 wrote: »
    While the OP is correct, it's a bit misleading. One should do 20+ minutes of cardio to be fat burning. Up to the 20 minute mark (approximately), you're basically burning off the sugars stored in your blood and muscle lining. the general statement is correct that if you are at a consistent calorie deficit, you will lose fat.
    You're burning a mix of glycogen and fat, but the the percentage of fat being burned is quite small. You burn a higher percentage of fat at rest (and we are at rest more than exercising) because it's the primary fuel when the body isn't doing anything physically demanding.

    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

    9285851.png

  • mikejdeleon85
    mikejdeleon85 Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    yeah that's true 2 years ago I dropped about 60lbs in 6 months and never once went to a gym funny part is I got scared from the doctor so I knew I had to make changes only exercise I did do was at work in a warehouse not on my feet 8 hrs of the day kinda sitting going sitting goin u know so yeah
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    Actually, the addition of exercise is much more effective in getting rid of visceral fat(you know, the stuff associated with heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc) than deficit alone.
    Is there a source for that claim?
    Not senecarr, but a quick pubmed search gave me these:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730190/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139333/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3214001/


    And one indicating that type of weight loss diet does not matter, in terms of losing visceral vs. other fat (or muscle)

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278241/

    Thanks.
  • mjwarbeck
    mjwarbeck Posts: 699 Member
    Options
    Problem that I have the original post is that it is too simplistic. I can easily argue that you do cardio to lose fat. Take my own example. It was by doing the cardio that I built up the endurance capability to burn the calories either through lifting or cardio....and therefore have a cardio deficit.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,594 Member
    Options
    mjwarbeck wrote: »
    Problem that I have the original post is that it is too simplistic. I can easily argue that you do cardio to lose fat. Take my own example. It was by doing the cardio that I built up the endurance capability to burn the calories either through lifting or cardio....and therefore have a cardio deficit.
    Eat the same amount of calories you burn and you don't burn fat regardless of how much cardio you do. It's not the exercise that burns fat, it's the reduction in energy storage that does.
    Cardio burns more calories that anaerobic exercise, but again without a calorie deficit (with the exception of recomp), the body will retain fat.

    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

    9285851.png

  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,484 Member
    Options
    robininfl wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    Actually, the addition of exercise is much more effective in getting rid of visceral fat(you know, the stuff associated with heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc) than deficit alone.
    Is there a source for that claim?
    Not senecarr, but a quick pubmed search gave me these:

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730190/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3139333/
    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3214001/


    And one indicating that type of weight loss diet does not matter, in terms of losing visceral vs. other fat (or muscle)

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278241/

    Thank you so much for those links. I did a good bit of reading on the topic a few years ago and never saved the links :'( .
    Now I have good references again.

    Cheers, h.