Burn More Fat!

24

Replies

  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    I supposed we could go further into the weeds on this if you really wanted to...

    I didn't say, as you put it, that "you are going to lost more body fat if you follow [my] recommendations," but sure, if you want, I'll say it now, because it's true.

    When you perform weight training, the muscle gets damaged. When the muscle is damaged, skeletal muscle creatine monophosphate is released. To create more ATP as an immediate energy source without using oxygen, i.e. for a quick burst of energy for the next contraction, the enzyme creatine kinase is used to transfer a phosphate group from a creatine phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule, producing ATP.

    In other words: The muscle is eating itself.

    During long-term cardio, very little muscle is being damaged and the muscle tissue is pulling its energy from the triglyceride (fat) stores.

    I'm not sure how you're using muscle damage during training as a means to justify what happens to body fat. Can you clarify that for me please?

    During weight training, muscle breakdown occurs, which is provable by doing a blood test and noting elevated levels of skeletal muscle creatine phosphate (as opposed to elevated levels of cardiac creatine phosphate... if that's elevated, you're probably having a heart attack). Since the skeletal muscle creatine phosphate is present, creatine kinase moves its phosphate group to an ADP molecule to create ATP as an immediate source of energy to restore the muscle cell and give it energy to contract again.

    Aerobic respiration against a triglyceride creates far more ATP (29 more molecules, actually), but it takes longer and the oxygen probably isn't immediately available. Hence, the use of the muscle breakdown (creatine phosphate) rather than pulling from fat during the exercise.

    And I think here is where you and I are getting entangled with each other and I hope it helps clarify:

    You may burn more body fat outside of the exercise period, of course, but during the exercise, you'll predominantly burn fat - instead of muscle - as you work out with cardio as opposed to an exercise that causes muscle breakdown.

    If we're talking about fat loss, outside of the workout, it comes down to diet, mostly. We just talked about that. But you can burn additional fat with long-term, steady-state cardio that does not involve muscle breakdown.

    I hope that's more clear?

    Just to clarify then, you believe that long term steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    I supposed we could go further into the weeds on this if you really wanted to...

    I didn't say, as you put it, that "you are going to lost more body fat if you follow [my] recommendations," but sure, if you want, I'll say it now, because it's true.

    When you perform weight training, the muscle gets damaged. When the muscle is damaged, skeletal muscle creatine monophosphate is released. To create more ATP as an immediate energy source without using oxygen, i.e. for a quick burst of energy for the next contraction, the enzyme creatine kinase is used to transfer a phosphate group from a creatine phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule, producing ATP.

    In other words: The muscle is eating itself.

    During long-term cardio, very little muscle is being damaged and the muscle tissue is pulling its energy from the triglyceride (fat) stores.

    I'm not sure how you're using muscle damage during training as a means to justify what happens to body fat. Can you clarify that for me please?

    During weight training, muscle breakdown occurs, which is provable by doing a blood test and noting elevated levels of skeletal muscle creatine phosphate (as opposed to elevated levels of cardiac creatine phosphate... if that's elevated, you're probably having a heart attack). Since the skeletal muscle creatine phosphate is present, creatine kinase moves its phosphate group to an ADP molecule to create ATP as an immediate source of energy to restore the muscle cell and give it energy to contract again.

    Aerobic respiration against a triglyceride creates far more ATP (29 more molecules, actually), but it takes longer and the oxygen probably isn't immediately available. Hence, the use of the muscle breakdown (creatine phosphate) rather than pulling from fat during the exercise.

    And I think here is where you and I are getting entangled with each other and I hope it helps clarify:

    You may burn more body fat outside of the exercise period, of course, but during the exercise, you'll predominantly burn fat - instead of muscle - as you work out with cardio as opposed to an exercise that causes muscle breakdown.

    If we're talking about fat loss, outside of the workout, it comes down to diet, mostly. We just talked about that. But you can burn additional fat with long-term, steady-state cardio that does not involve muscle breakdown.

    I hope that's more clear?

    Just to clarify then, you believe that long term steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?

    Again... I'm not comparing the two.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Ultimately it's still going to boil down to the ability to create a calorie deficit.

    Exactly this. To "burn more fat", you need to create a greater caloric deficit. How one goes about doing this is down to them.
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    This is an interesting conversation.

    @LaMartian, do you have some sources regarding what you write about in your latest response? I'd like to read up on this. :)

    Absolutely. All my information is coming directly from my university's Anatomy & Physiology BIO 141 text book.

    Anatomy & Physiology: An Integrative Approach; McKinley/O'Loughlin/Bidle: Anatomy & Physiology: An Integrative Approach, 2e

    I would like specific sources, as in peer reviewed articles for your claims, please.

    University books don't always have accurate information, and the book and information therein is often outdated as well.

    I posted a specific source. You can compare it by finding others, if you like, though. The book only came out in 2014, so it's not incredibly likely the chemistry of how a muscle eats is outdated. I can post the list of peer reviewers if you like, but it's three pages long.
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Ultimately it's still going to boil down to the ability to create a calorie deficit.

    Exactly this. To "burn more fat", you need to create a greater caloric deficit. How one goes about doing this is down to them.

    No. To burn more anything, you create a caloric deficit. Not just fat.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Ultimately it's still going to boil down to the ability to create a calorie deficit.

    Exactly this. To "burn more fat", you need to create a greater caloric deficit. How one goes about doing this is down to them.

    And, this hits the nail on the head.

    There is no one way to get that calorie deficit, it's what works for you. Cardio or none at all.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    I supposed we could go further into the weeds on this if you really wanted to...

    I didn't say, as you put it, that "you are going to lost more body fat if you follow [my] recommendations," but sure, if you want, I'll say it now, because it's true.

    When you perform weight training, the muscle gets damaged. When the muscle is damaged, skeletal muscle creatine monophosphate is released. To create more ATP as an immediate energy source without using oxygen, i.e. for a quick burst of energy for the next contraction, the enzyme creatine kinase is used to transfer a phosphate group from a creatine phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule, producing ATP.

    In other words: The muscle is eating itself.

    During long-term cardio, very little muscle is being damaged and the muscle tissue is pulling its energy from the triglyceride (fat) stores.

    I'm not sure how you're using muscle damage during training as a means to justify what happens to body fat. Can you clarify that for me please?

    During weight training, muscle breakdown occurs, which is provable by doing a blood test and noting elevated levels of skeletal muscle creatine phosphate (as opposed to elevated levels of cardiac creatine phosphate... if that's elevated, you're probably having a heart attack). Since the skeletal muscle creatine phosphate is present, creatine kinase moves its phosphate group to an ADP molecule to create ATP as an immediate source of energy to restore the muscle cell and give it energy to contract again.

    Aerobic respiration against a triglyceride creates far more ATP (29 more molecules, actually), but it takes longer and the oxygen probably isn't immediately available. Hence, the use of the muscle breakdown (creatine phosphate) rather than pulling from fat during the exercise.

    And I think here is where you and I are getting entangled with each other and I hope it helps clarify:

    You may burn more body fat outside of the exercise period, of course, but during the exercise, you'll predominantly burn fat - instead of muscle - as you work out with cardio as opposed to an exercise that causes muscle breakdown.

    If we're talking about fat loss, outside of the workout, it comes down to diet, mostly. We just talked about that. But you can burn additional fat with long-term, steady-state cardio that does not involve muscle breakdown.

    I hope that's more clear?

    Just to clarify then, you believe that long term steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?

    Again... I'm not comparing the two.

    Ultimately, though, you are. Since you're losing weight, you're losing both fat and lean mass. If you claim to burn more fat, that implies that lean mass loss is less, given the same Caloric deficit.
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    edited October 2016
    Anyway, as is typical with the gym community, solid proof - posted with a source and everything - is met with "I don't believe you"s and that's fine. At the end of the day it's still going to be how your body works. Have a great day, everyone. When in doubt, https://scholar.google.com (among other engines) is your friend.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Let me rephrase.

    Do you believe that steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?

    I have another question for you:

    In a calorie matched condition with two groups where one group is resistance training and doing HIIT and the other group is resistance training and doing LISS, and we match calorie and macronutrient intake, is it your belief that the LISS group will achieve greater fat loss due to either substrate utilization during the training bout OR the muscle sparing effects of the cardio modality?
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    edited October 2016
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    This is an interesting conversation.

    @LaMartian, do you have some sources regarding what you write about in your latest response? I'd like to read up on this. :)

    Absolutely. All my information is coming directly from my university's Anatomy & Physiology BIO 141 text book.

    Anatomy & Physiology: An Integrative Approach; McKinley/O'Loughlin/Bidle: Anatomy & Physiology: An Integrative Approach, 2e

    I would like specific sources, as in peer reviewed articles for your claims, please.

    University books don't always have accurate information, and the book and information therein is often outdated as well.

    I posted a specific source. You can compare it by finding others, if you like, though. The book only came out in 2014, so it's not incredibly likely the chemistry of how a muscle eats is outdated. I can post the list of peer reviewers if you like, but it's three pages long.

    I'm not asking for something three pages long, but a few sources for your claims regarding what burns fat the quickest. A calorie deficit trumps no matter your chosen exercise, or none at all.

    The onus to provide peer reviewed articles is on the person who makes the claim. :)
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    I supposed we could go further into the weeds on this if you really wanted to...

    I didn't say, as you put it, that "you are going to lost more body fat if you follow [my] recommendations," but sure, if you want, I'll say it now, because it's true.

    When you perform weight training, the muscle gets damaged. When the muscle is damaged, skeletal muscle creatine monophosphate is released. To create more ATP as an immediate energy source without using oxygen, i.e. for a quick burst of energy for the next contraction, the enzyme creatine kinase is used to transfer a phosphate group from a creatine phosphate molecule to an ADP molecule, producing ATP.

    In other words: The muscle is eating itself.

    During long-term cardio, very little muscle is being damaged and the muscle tissue is pulling its energy from the triglyceride (fat) stores.

    I'm not sure how you're using muscle damage during training as a means to justify what happens to body fat. Can you clarify that for me please?

    During weight training, muscle breakdown occurs, which is provable by doing a blood test and noting elevated levels of skeletal muscle creatine phosphate (as opposed to elevated levels of cardiac creatine phosphate... if that's elevated, you're probably having a heart attack). Since the skeletal muscle creatine phosphate is present, creatine kinase moves its phosphate group to an ADP molecule to create ATP as an immediate source of energy to restore the muscle cell and give it energy to contract again.

    Aerobic respiration against a triglyceride creates far more ATP (29 more molecules, actually), but it takes longer and the oxygen probably isn't immediately available. Hence, the use of the muscle breakdown (creatine phosphate) rather than pulling from fat during the exercise.

    And I think here is where you and I are getting entangled with each other and I hope it helps clarify:

    You may burn more body fat outside of the exercise period, of course, but during the exercise, you'll predominantly burn fat - instead of muscle - as you work out with cardio as opposed to an exercise that causes muscle breakdown.

    If we're talking about fat loss, outside of the workout, it comes down to diet, mostly. We just talked about that. But you can burn additional fat with long-term, steady-state cardio that does not involve muscle breakdown.

    I hope that's more clear?

    Just to clarify then, you believe that long term steady state cardio is better preservative of skeletal muscle than high intensity interval training?

    Again... I'm not comparing the two.

    Ultimately, though, you are. Since you're losing weight, you're losing both fat and lean mass. If you claim to burn more fat, that implies that lean mass loss is less, given the same Caloric deficit.

    ^ This is an important distinction to make too. If you believe that a given training modality is better because it will cause greater fat loss given the SAME energy deficit, you are implying a muscle protein sparing effect.
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    edited October 2016
    Man, y'all are missing the point here.

    I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).

    I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."

    I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.

    No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means weight loss. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.

    I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    LaMartian wrote: »
    Anyway, as is typical with the gym community, solid proof - posted with a source and everything - is met with "I don't believe you"s and that's fine. At the end of the day it's still going to be how your body works. Have a great day, everyone. When in doubt, https://scholar.google.com (among other engines) is your friend.

    But what is the practical point you are making? That's the disconnect.

    I do very long duration cardio (longest 9 hours) so substrate utilisation (and exercise fuelling in general) is important to me but not to people looking to lose weight (fat).
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    edited October 2016
    LaMartian wrote: »
    Man, y'all are missing the point here.

    I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).

    I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."

    I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.

    No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means [/i]weight loss[/i]. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.

    I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.

    If you are in a deficit with lifting only do you think you will end up with more or less muscle vs being in a deficit with cardio only?
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    And since it apparently needs to be stated... if I didn't write it, I didn't imply it either.
  • LaMartian
    LaMartian Posts: 478 Member
    edited October 2016
    SideSteel wrote: »
    LaMartian wrote: »
    Man, y'all are missing the point here.

    I'm not talking about losing weight. (caloric deficit).

    I'm not talking about what "burns fat quickest."

    I'm talking about what burns fat at all and how you could, effectively, burn more of it than doing JUST lifting and JUST dieting.

    No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means [/i]weight loss[/i]. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting WITH steady-state cardio, you are losing muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat as you rest due to the deficit and aerobic respiration AND YOU WILL LOSE MORE when you add the LISS than you would have without it.

    I mean, phrased like that, it's kind of a "no sh**, I knew that," but the point of the thread was to show a "how it works" and why adding LISS to your regimen isn't a bad idea if you don't already have it and want to lose more fat than just being in deficit and lifting alone.

    If you are in a deficit with lifting only do you think you will end up with more or less muscle vs being in a deficit with cardio only?

    Really that just comes down to how long you're in deficit, so the answer is it probably depends... eventually you're going to lose that muscle if you're not using it because the body knows that (muscle atrophy generally occurs beginning at two weeks of non-use). I'd keep lifting. Maintain the demand to keep the muscle as intact as possible. If I was cutting, I'd keep the lifting at a maintenance level instead of trying to go higher, because in deficit, the chance of rebuilding muscle tissue that got more damaged lifting heavier than last week is lower than muscle that was damaged just lifting what your current levels already are.

    ^^ But that's not from the book. That's just me saying "I think and I am not sure"
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Suppose I have two cases:

    1) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week.
    2) 500 calorie deficit with resistance training 4/week and low intensity long duration cardio.

    Matched deficit size so the same amount of WEIGHT (NOT FAT) is lost in each example. Same person, in this hypothetical model. Lets assume it's 12 weeks in duration.


    Do you believe #2 will lose MORE FAT even though the same WEIGHT is lost between the two groups?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,373 MFP Moderator
    I am really trying to understand what point you are trying to make. Even if you burn more intra-exercise, it will be quickly replenished after your next meal.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    LaMartian wrote: »
    No. Caloric deficit does not mean fat loss. It means weight loss. How the body LOSES that weight is up to how it's used.

    If you're in a deficit and lifting only, you will lose muscle while you exercise due to breakdown and digestion, and you will lose fat while you are not lifting due to aerobic respiration and not breaking muscle down actively.

    I agree that you will lose weight on the scale which will be a combination of fat and lean mass.

    I do not agree with your second point at all. I dieted down from 23% bodyfat to 14% bodyfat and did no cardio at all. I also lost little to no LBM.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Here's the biggest problem, IMO. You put this thread in the "General Diet and Weight Loss Forum." So, of course people are responding in terms of weight loss, since it obviously has nothing to do with diet. If you're not actually talking about weight loss, you put it in the wrong place.