Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fat Burning Zone
smit7633
Posts: 182 Member
in Debate Club
Fact or Crap?
0
Replies
-
The % of energy you get from fat vs carbohydrate changes with the intensity of the exercise :-
and the amount of fat oxidised goes through a maximum :-
0 -
The way our body works, it will always use a mix of fat and glycogen for fuel. The more you exert yourself, the higher the percentage of glycogen, because it's easy to access and just a faster process altogether. So basically, you're burning the most fat percentage wise while you're sleeping, when glycogen is only used to keep your blood sugar steady.
However, of course, during exercise you'll burn more total calories, so there is some point at which, even though you'll burn less fat percentually, the amount of calories from fat you burn peak. That point is somewhere along 60% of your max intensity.
http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat/
Again however, and they talk about it, it doesn't make you lose fat any faster in the long term, that's still bound by CICO. But they don't say why in that article I think.
The why is easy. Even if you train up to an intensity where you're almost exclusively using glycogen for fuel, later on during your next meal(s) that glycogen will be replenished by carbs from your meal(s) because the body tries to keep glycogen levels up for intense exercise like the one you just did and for your blood sugar levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21190/
Those carbs that are used to replenish your glycogen are then obviously not available for fuel, your current deficit is increased from that and you're losing fat because you're at rest. So while you didn't burn much fat during exercise, you're burning extra afterwards. It's like you delayed the fat loss from during the exercise to the rest time afterwards.
Maybe an example helps illustrate that.
Let's say your normal daily burn is 2000, your exercise burned 500 at 100% glycogen use.
That means your glycogen stores are down by 500 calories, you lost no fat so far.
You're eating 2000 calories that day, you're at -500 calories but all of those were from glycogen, oh noes!
But, 500 of those 2000 calories you ate go to replenishing your glycogen stores, it's "paying" for your exercise so to speak, and the other 1500 go to your normal burns and you end up at -500 calories that are going to be taken from mostly fat.
That's simplified of course.
Tl;dr: It's another biological fact that gets widely misrepresented by the diet industry.2 -
Majoring in the minors
0 -
Can I come in the fat burning zone please?0
-
My experience has been that long aerobic sessions have that "fat burning zone", but once you stop the activity, then what?Fact or Crap?
I once heard a bodybuilding guy call it the "Muscle Burning Zone"...lol
So, aerobic training is fine, and added strength training and HIIT have effects on fat burning while a body is at rest.
Maybe some science folk will further elaborate. I am not wired for science, but I got an "A" in PE...and today the guy who got an "A" in science pays me to wash his car...but I digress....
0 -
Cool!0
-
I found out unintentionally from personal experience the truth that low intensity exercise does indeed burn more fat than carbs.0
-
Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat. Exercising in "fat burning zone" enhances ability to utilize more fat during exercise which can possibly improve endurance performance, but does not lead to greater loss of fat. Body uses/stores fat on a 24hr/365 day basis--exercise only a tiny part of that. Depending on how much used during exercise, body will up or down regulate fat oxidation the rest of the day. Still depends on calorie deficit.
Conclusion: crap0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The way our body works, it will always use a mix of fat and glycogen for fuel. The more you exert yourself, the higher the percentage of glycogen, because it's easy to access and just a faster process altogether. So basically, you're burning the most fat percentage wise while you're sleeping, when glycogen is only used to keep your blood sugar steady.
However, of course, during exercise you'll burn more total calories, so there is some point at which, even though you'll burn less fat percentually, the amount of calories from fat you burn peak. That point is somewhere along 60% of your max intensity.
http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat/
Again however, and they talk about it, it doesn't make you lose fat any faster in the long term, that's still bound by CICO. But they don't say why in that article I think.
The why is easy. Even if you train up to an intensity where you're almost exclusively using glycogen for fuel, later on during your next meal(s) that glycogen will be replenished by carbs from your meal(s) because the body tries to keep glycogen levels up for intense exercise like the one you just did and for your blood sugar levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21190/
Those carbs that are used to replenish your glycogen are then obviously not available for fuel, your current deficit is increased from that and you're losing fat because you're at rest. So while you didn't burn much fat during exercise, you're burning extra afterwards. It's like you delayed the fat loss from during the exercise to the rest time afterwards.
Maybe an example helps illustrate that.
Let's say your normal daily burn is 2000, your exercise burned 500 at 100% glycogen use.
That means your glycogen stores are down by 500 calories, you lost no fat so far.
You're eating 2000 calories that day, you're at -500 calories but all of those were from glycogen, oh noes!
But, 500 of those 2000 calories you ate go to replenishing your glycogen stores, it's "paying" for your exercise so to speak, and the other 1500 go to your normal burns and you end up at -500 calories that are going to be taken from mostly fat.
That's simplified of course.
Tl;dr: It's another biological fact that gets widely misrepresented by the diet industry.
Really good post. Everyone should read it.0 -
Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.0 -
Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.
And if you stay at a deficit, the glycogen repletion means you have less calories for your normal day to day burn that will be fueled by fat.
Deficit, like always.0 -
So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.0
-
Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.
No I just made it up for fun.
Of course I do:
Look up Melanson et al. Exercise improves fat metabolism in muscle but does not
increase 24-h fat oxidation
Title pretty much says it all.
0 -
So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
Basically, yes. The overall goal of exercise should be to improve fitness level. The higher your fitness, the more work you can do at any intensity level, and thus the more calories you will burn.
For most people, this will be best achieved with a mix of endurance, tempo, and high intensity interval training.
0 -
So I thought the point if exercise was to help create that calorie deficit and to hopefully not loose too much muscle when you're eating less...please adviseFuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat. Exercising in "fat burning zone" enhances ability to utilize more fat during exercise which can possibly improve endurance performance, but does not lead to greater loss of fat. Body uses/stores fat on a 24hr/365 day basis--exercise only a tiny part of that. Depending on how much used during exercise, body will up or down regulate fat oxidation the rest of the day. Still depends on calorie deficit.
Conclusion: crap
0 -
So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
Basically, yes. The overall goal of exercise should be to improve fitness level. The higher your fitness, the more work you can do at any intensity level, and thus the more calories you will burn.
For most people, this will be best achieved with a mix of endurance, tempo, and high intensity interval training.
I have noticed that of the 20 lbs of weight I've lost so far less than half were fat pounds, I'm worried that my body is using my muscle instead of my fat to replace the food I'm eating less of.
0 -
Crap. What most people don't realize that any physical activity that depletes glycogen and fat, will get restored from the consumption of nutrients and food that day.
The "fat burning zone" IMO though true based on higher fat percentage of fat burned during low intensity exercise, was CREATED to help overweight people who didn't like exercise, do a form of exercise using their gym membership. Chalk that up to the fitness industry.
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 -
Yes, but you lose weight - not just "fat".So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
And the exercises you engage will determine fitness levels and affect health.
For mere weight loss, do whatever...eat whatever but maintain a calorie deficit.
I always desired so much more than mere weight loss
0 -
So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
Basically, yes. The overall goal of exercise should be to improve fitness level. The higher your fitness, the more work you can do at any intensity level, and thus the more calories you will burn.
For most people, this will be best achieved with a mix of endurance, tempo, and high intensity interval training.
I have noticed that of the 20 lbs of weight I've lost so far less than half were fat pounds, I'm worried that my body is using my muscle instead of my fat to replace the food I'm eating less of.
And you are determining that how? Other than some specific health/medical conditions the max I've seen is around 35% of loss from Lean body mass-- and that's from people doing HCG and 500 cal/day diet.
A recent client has lost 28 pounds since Jan 3rd. He cannot strength train, so it's all cardio and diet. Last check 24lbs was fat, 2lbs muscle, 2lbs water.
0 -
OK thanksSo basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
Basically, yes. The overall goal of exercise should be to improve fitness level. The higher your fitness, the more work you can do at any intensity level, and thus the more calories you will burn.
For most people, this will be best achieved with a mix of endurance, tempo, and high intensity interval training.
I have noticed that of the 20 lbs of weight I've lost so far less than half were fat pounds, I'm worried that my body is using my muscle instead of my fat to replace the food I'm eating less of.
And you are determining that how? Other than some specific health/medical conditions the max I've seen is around 35% of loss from Lean body mass-- and that's from people doing HCG and 500 cal/day diet.
A recent client has lost 28 pounds since Jan 3rd. He cannot strength train, so it's all cardio and diet. Last check 24lbs was fat, 2lbs muscle, 2lbs water.
0 -
Yes, but you lose weight - not just "fat".So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
And the exercises you engage will determine fitness levels and affect health.
For mere weight loss, do whatever...eat whatever but maintain a calorie deficit.
I always desired so much more than mere weight loss
I can't even think of the words to describe how you come across right now.0 -
Diet and exercise is a function of the goals we set; that was my point. Sometimes the internet is a bad place to convey intentions.
Yes, but you lose weight - not just "fat".So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
And the exercises you engage will determine fitness levels and affect health.
For mere weight loss, do whatever...eat whatever but maintain a calorie deficit.
I always desired so much more than mere weight loss
I can't even think of the words to describe how you come across right now.
Just take what you can, and don't get offended. Good luck to you in reaching your goals.
0 -
Higher intensity exercise that mostly burns glycogen makes you very hungry (so you'll eat, carbs mostly, to restore your glycogen levels) while lower and moderate intensity, burning fat, doesn't make you nearly as heavy.So I thought the point if exercise was to help create that calorie deficit and to hopefully not loose too much muscle when you're eating less...please advise
It does both. If losing weight is most important, you'll want to do moderate intensity and longer time to burn more calories, either to "buy" some back to eat, or for your deficit. But if you want to get healthier, to be able to do a specific hike or event or to build muscle and look better etc, you exercise for that too.0 -
So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
Basically, yes. The overall goal of exercise should be to improve fitness level. The higher your fitness, the more work you can do at any intensity level, and thus the more calories you will burn.
For most people, this will be best achieved with a mix of endurance, tempo, and high intensity interval training.
Yup.So I thought the point if exercise was to help create that calorie deficit and to hopefully not loose too much muscle when you're eating less...please adviseFuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat. Exercising in "fat burning zone" enhances ability to utilize more fat during exercise which can possibly improve endurance performance, but does not lead to greater loss of fat. Body uses/stores fat on a 24hr/365 day basis--exercise only a tiny part of that. Depending on how much used during exercise, body will up or down regulate fat oxidation the rest of the day. Still depends on calorie deficit.
Conclusion: crap
Doesn't the "point of exercise" depend on the person and their goals? I want to complete some challenging (to me) events, so the point of exercise for me is training. I think it would be easier to lose weight faster with less exercise (or different) in the short term, but I find this motivating, so it's worth it.
I think it's bad/sad when people see the point of exercise as only about weight loss, as I think it's important for lots of reasons.0 -
Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.
No I just made it up for fun.
Of course I do:
Look up Melanson et al. Exercise improves fat metabolism in muscle but does not
increase 24-h fat oxidation
Title pretty much says it all.
Review :-(
How about a metabolic study that shows the difference over 24h or longer from exercising at two different intensities with equivalent energy expenditure that burn a different amount of fat.
If I can burn 20g more fat in the exercise, what's the mechanism for that getting corrected over the day ?
In the review linked they say typically say "24-h RQ did not significantly differ" but in general this looks to be more due to underpowered experiments. In the graph below they show significant differences in carb oxidation, which should be reflected by differences in fat oxidation if the experiment is steady state ie in balance over the 24h. Otherwise the glycogen depletion would accumulate and the response would change.
The review also has statements like "Fat balance was also not affected by exercise (−4 ± 10 vs. 26 ± 10 g)." which I struggle with. If I was to lose $4 or gain $26 would I say it was the same ;-)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.
And if you stay at a deficit, the glycogen repletion means you have less calories for your normal day to day burn that will be fueled by fat.
Deficit, like always.
only if the output / burn stays the same. If I get to the end of a lower intensity exercise session with 18g less fat and 36g more carbohydrate on board than the equivalent higher intensity session (same 500 calories) what metabolic effects occur ?
Doesn't need to be a deficit, we can do the thought experiment in maintenance.
I have read for example that substrate oxidation during sleep is not affected, so that leaves the rest of the waking day. If one were to eat the same, would the non-exercise RQ vary, if so why and what's the mechanism ?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Fuel substrate used during exercise has no effect on loss of body fat.
Do you have any evidence for that ?
Saw this earlier, which sounded relevant : smile:
"For over 20 years, we at [redacted] have seen this all too often, particularly with women. Many of these ladies are on a vigorous aerobic exercise routine (spinning classes, running, cycling or swimming) and they are VERY committed to their program. Yet when they finish their daily exercise they more than likely eat a lot of carbohydrates and they even may be told by a trainer to eat a lot of “good carbs” to keep their glycogen charged which will ensure a great workout. To continue to do this and expect to have great weight loss success is folly as we are just replenishing the glycogen that we burnt during exercise. "
Sounds like the back half of many marathons and fun runs.
And if you stay at a deficit, the glycogen repletion means you have less calories for your normal day to day burn that will be fueled by fat.
Deficit, like always.
only if the output / burn stays the same. If I get to the end of a lower intensity exercise session with 18g less fat and 36g more carbohydrate on board than the equivalent higher intensity session (same 500 calories) what metabolic effects occur ?
Doesn't need to be a deficit, we can do the thought experiment in maintenance.
I have read for example that substrate oxidation during sleep is not affected, so that leaves the rest of the waking day. If one were to eat the same, would the non-exercise RQ vary, if so why and what's the mechanism ?
What do you think happens?
Does your EE outside of exercise change if your exercise routine is a different intensity even at the same total amount burned? And if yes, by anything more than trivial, only-interesting-for-research-purposes amounts? That wasn't the question to begin with but anyway.0 -
I'm asking what happens. I'm told the RQ doesn't change, which would suggest the imbalance created during exercise will persist. I'm not talking about EE changing outside of exercise, I was assuming not, but whether a difference in fuelling during exercise is corrected over 24h, and if so how.
If I can burn 20g more fat in the exercise, and do that daily, it's 7.3 kg/year. It's interesting enough in the context of obesity.0 -
Diet and exercise is a function of the goals we set; that was my point. Sometimes the internet is a bad place to convey intentions.
Yes, but you lose weight - not just "fat".So basically the take home message from all of this is eat at a deficit, do whatever exercise you want at whatever intensity you want, lose fat.
And the exercises you engage will determine fitness levels and affect health.
For mere weight loss, do whatever...eat whatever but maintain a calorie deficit.
I always desired so much more than mere weight loss
I can't even think of the words to describe how you come across right now.
Just take what you can, and don't get offended. Good luck to you in reaching your goals.
I never take offence, that's like choosing to get annoyed about something. It's just weird and confusing how people come across online. I'd imagine people feel the same way about how my posts come across because I never feel I'm able to say things in the way I mean them.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The way our body works, it will always use a mix of fat and glycogen for fuel. The more you exert yourself, the higher the percentage of glycogen, because it's easy to access and just a faster process altogether. So basically, you're burning the most fat percentage wise while you're sleeping, when glycogen is only used to keep your blood sugar steady.
However, of course, during exercise you'll burn more total calories, so there is some point at which, even though you'll burn less fat percentually, the amount of calories from fat you burn peak. That point is somewhere along 60% of your max intensity.
http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat/
Again however, and they talk about it, it doesn't make you lose fat any faster in the long term, that's still bound by CICO. But they don't say why in that article I think.
The why is easy. Even if you train up to an intensity where you're almost exclusively using glycogen for fuel, later on during your next meal(s) that glycogen will be replenished by carbs from your meal(s) because the body tries to keep glycogen levels up for intense exercise like the one you just did and for your blood sugar levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21190/
Those carbs that are used to replenish your glycogen are then obviously not available for fuel, your current deficit is increased from that and you're losing fat because you're at rest. So while you didn't burn much fat during exercise, you're burning extra afterwards. It's like you delayed the fat loss from during the exercise to the rest time afterwards.
Maybe an example helps illustrate that.
Let's say your normal daily burn is 2000, your exercise burned 500 at 100% glycogen use.
That means your glycogen stores are down by 500 calories, you lost no fat so far.
You're eating 2000 calories that day, you're at -500 calories but all of those were from glycogen, oh noes!
But, 500 of those 2000 calories you ate go to replenishing your glycogen stores, it's "paying" for your exercise so to speak, and the other 1500 go to your normal burns and you end up at -500 calories that are going to be taken from mostly fat.
That's simplified of course.
Tl;dr: It's another biological fact that gets widely misrepresented by the diet industry.
Really good post. Everyone should read it.
FINALLY !!!
Praize the Lord !0
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
- 426 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