Burn More Fat!
Replies
-
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.
That is an easy thing to fix.0 -
The biggest problem I have with all of this besides some misunderstanding of the actual point of the post is that the OP is assuming that what happens to substrates DURING EXERCISE is reflective of what happens to things over larger periods of time.
So for example even if a given exercise damages muscle tissue it doesn't mean that this exercise leads to muscle loss as evident with both HIIT and resistance training.
Just because an exercise utilizes fat as a primary substrate during the training bout does not mean it leads to greater changes in whole body fat mass vs an exercise that does not utilize fat as a primary substrate and evidence of this would again be in a comparison between fasted and fed cardio even though I know that's not the topic being discussed.
You cannot look at what happens during the training bout and extrapolate what happens over weeks and months of using that training because of what happens outside of the training bout.1 -
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?
That's interesting... I hadn't thought of it that way. So the cardio is not adding a greater than 500C deficit? If not, I might think they'd be about the same... So I completely see your argument about deficit now.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.
Well the very first reply was me saying I may have put it in the wrong section.0 -
I guess this can be deleted, then. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Thank you for the replies.0
-
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.
That is an easy thing to fix.
@psulemon
Go on - use your superpowers!
0 -
I'd also like to add here that (at least so far) nobody is throwing out personal attacks. So please don't let disagreement get in the way of a good discussion.0
-
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
I vote leave it up. Not to embarrass you (or anyone), but to show others that it's OK to have an "a-ha" moment.
FWIW: I applaud you being open to the idea that you... weren't "wrong," but maybe were open to new thoughts.0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.0 -
I've always had great success doing one hour of moderate cardio on the elliptical to burn fat. I learned that long ago from a diet... The Six Week Body Makeover.. which worked super well for me.
According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can. I've never done the circuit training.. and bursts of faster cardio mixed with slow like some do now. I stick with this. it works.
I've heard a lot of critics of this method.. but i'm not going to reinvent the wheel.0 -
I wouldn't be embarrassed at all dude. It shows you're willing to have a discussion.2
-
Actually I have a diagram that explains that by comparing different runners on a track, if you're interested...elisa123gal wrote: »I've always had great success doing one hour of moderate cardio on the elliptical to burn fat. I learned that long ago from a diet... The Six Week Body Makeover.. which worked super well for me.
According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can. I've never done the circuit training.. and bursts of faster cardio mixed with slow like some do now. I stick with this. it works.
I've heard a lot of critics of this method.. but i'm not going to reinvent the wheel.I wouldn't be embarrassed at all dude. It shows you're willing to have a discussion.
There should still be a "sheepish" emoticon.
0 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.1 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.
I've certainly been wrong as hell plenty of times.0 -
It's all good discussion - makes a change from people thinking a bit of LISS will transform them into a bag of bones or the mirror image of an elite marathon runner......
2 -
You could... but ultimately it ends up with me realizing "oh yeah... all you're really doing is creating a larger deficit" and thereby making myself look like a total dumb *kitten*.
At least how muscle eats got explained, I guess.
Well you can ask for deletion because of a comment or we can discuss it further so we can create a learning opportunity.
It was more out of embarrassment since apparently everyone already knows this and I'm just now showing up to the table.Something to keep in mind that was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread:
If for example a given training modality were to provide GREATER FAT LOSS at the same deficit size (so for example under a calorie controlled condition) then it automatically implies a protein sparing effect.
Since if you are losing more fat at the same amount of weight lost, the person losing more fat is sparing more muscle. So in order to prove this being the case you would have to be able to show a protein sparing effect of that training modality.
that's just another way to think of it anyways
Well, I haven't gotten to that point in the class yet (if it'll be discussed at all, anyway) so I wouldn't know where to begin touching on protein sparing specifically, but hopefully it's coming up.
Half the people in this thread say dumb crap all the time. We only get better by people correcting it. It's how I have learned.
Guilty.
eta: And we can always use another post reassuring people that they won't get HYOOOOOOGE from lifting weights a few times a week.0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »According to what I learned... you don't go into the fat burning mode until 20 or 25 minutes into cardio.. So. .I stay on for a full hour to burn as much fat as i can.
Well, for anyone interested, according to "the book," available ATP and phosphate transfer is used in the first 5-6 seconds, such as a 50-meter run.
After that's used up, the muscles begin glycolysis as a short-term energy source.
Finally, around minutes 5-6 (after 400 meter run), aerobic respiration kicks off as the long-term, primary energy source (without going anaerobic).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 902 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions