Fat Loss - UK-Muscle Body Building Community

kyrocera · 10-12-2004, 12:11 PM

Ive had this on my harddrive for a while, cant remember exactly where i got it from. Dont know if its true or not. Here goes.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Many people believe that any type of aerobic exercise will do when it comes to reducing bodyfat. They believe that running, biking, stair-climbing and so on burns 'x' amount of calories so it must be good. Research seems to show us something different:

The amount of fat burned by exercise depends on the fuel mixture used by the body for that exercise. Most programs burn sugar, leaving bodyfat virtually untouched.

Many gym programs and diets recommend doing 70% of your maximum heart rate as the optimal training level for fat loss. (220 / your age) x 70% = your training heart rate) This apparently puts you just below the aerobic/anaerobic threshold. The point which is touted as the ideal for fat loss. However, I believe this to be wrong: Firstly this aerobic/anaerobic threshold depends on how fit the person is in the first place. More importantly, the training heart rate was intended for fitness NOT fat loss.

Let's look further:

A lot of people exercising at 70% of their heart rate would be panting for breath, especially bodybuilders. The moment you begin to pant, the body switches to burning mainly sugar and protein. Fat use for fuel and loss of bodyfat become negligible. Using protein for fuel means catabolism, something we don't want.

Training at 70% heart rate would improve heart strength, capacity and vo2 max (ideal in the off-season when the body's in a high anabolic mode) but it won't effectively burn bodyfat. But why?

Research shows that fat needs an abundance of oxygen to burn. This is because it's so calorie-dense (9 Kcal per gram). Carbs and protein however are much less dense (4 Kcal per gram) and are therefore much easier to utilize.

So, logically it would seem a training rate of around 50% would be more effective for fat-burning, as the fat cells have more available oxygen to be utilized. That's why brisk walking has been shown to be more effective. Anything more intense and the units of oxygen decrease and the body has to incorporate more and more sugar and protein into the fuel mixture to maintain performance.

Duration is also another important factor: Research again shows us that 20 mins exercise is normally required before the fat burning processes kick in. This is due to a host of variable: food in the gut, level of fitness, etc. Another 30 minutes on top of the basic 20 usually does the trick. First thing in the morning, before breakfast when the blood sugar level is low, is normally the best time.

However, if you're like me and hate the idea of physical activity before noon, then you can do your aerobic work directly after training. The weight training itself will evoke the necessary adrenal response to trigger fat burning, so aerobic work straight after, for say 20-30 minutes cuts down the duration whilst having the same effect. You could exploit both: For example, in contest preparation for maximum effect, but only for a short period as too much can easily cannibalize muscle. Do that and your basal metabolic rate lowers, reducing your ability to burn bodyfat.

So there you have it, keep your intensity around 50% training heart rate, do it when the blood sugar level's low, and don't reduce your calorie level too low. The fat should just melt away.

Gridlock · 10-12-2004, 01:47 PM

Yeah, I was always told that to actually burn fat for fuel you need to be working at a very low level - one of my trainers used to say you need to jog at a pace where you can carry on a normal conversation with your partner.

However I do think there is more than one way to burn fat The energy you use in a more intense workout has got to be replaced at some point - ie it will take some calories from your next meal or when you are resting the body will start to use some of your body fat to replace your depleated stores. The other thing that early morning exercise does is set your metabolism up for the day, so it stands to reason that the more intense your workout the more stoked your metabolism will be and the more calories you will burn at rest throughout the day.

As hackski says - 150g of protien a day should prevent muscle catabolism

10-12-2004, 12:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
kyrocera Head of UK-M's neighbourhood boob watch. Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Southampton Posts: 1,376	Fat Loss Ive had this on my harddrive for a while, cant remember exactly where i got it from. Dont know if its true or not. Here goes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Many people believe that any type of aerobic exercise will do when it comes to reducing bodyfat. They believe that running, biking, stair-climbing and so on burns 'x' amount of calories so it must be good. Research seems to show us something different: The amount of fat burned by exercise depends on the fuel mixture used by the body for that exercise. Most programs burn sugar, leaving bodyfat virtually untouched. Many gym programs and diets recommend doing 70% of your maximum heart rate as the optimal training level for fat loss. (220 / your age) x 70% = your training heart rate) This apparently puts you just below the aerobic/anaerobic threshold. The point which is touted as the ideal for fat loss. However, I believe this to be wrong: Firstly this aerobic/anaerobic threshold depends on how fit the person is in the first place. More importantly, the training heart rate was intended for fitness NOT fat loss. Let's look further: A lot of people exercising at 70% of their heart rate would be panting for breath, especially bodybuilders. The moment you begin to pant, the body switches to burning mainly sugar and protein. Fat use for fuel and loss of bodyfat become negligible. Using protein for fuel means catabolism, something we don't want. Training at 70% heart rate would improve heart strength, capacity and vo2 max (ideal in the off-season when the body's in a high anabolic mode) but it won't effectively burn bodyfat. But why? Research shows that fat needs an abundance of oxygen to burn. This is because it's so calorie-dense (9 Kcal per gram). Carbs and protein however are much less dense (4 Kcal per gram) and are therefore much easier to utilize. So, logically it would seem a training rate of around 50% would be more effective for fat-burning, as the fat cells have more available oxygen to be utilized. That's why brisk walking has been shown to be more effective. Anything more intense and the units of oxygen decrease and the body has to incorporate more and more sugar and protein into the fuel mixture to maintain performance. Duration is also another important factor: Research again shows us that 20 mins exercise is normally required before the fat burning processes kick in. This is due to a host of variable: food in the gut, level of fitness, etc. Another 30 minutes on top of the basic 20 usually does the trick. First thing in the morning, before breakfast when the blood sugar level is low, is normally the best time. However, if you're like me and hate the idea of physical activity before noon, then you can do your aerobic work directly after training. The weight training itself will evoke the necessary adrenal response to trigger fat burning, so aerobic work straight after, for say 20-30 minutes cuts down the duration whilst having the same effect. You could exploit both: For example, in contest preparation for maximum effect, but only for a short period as too much can easily cannibalize muscle. Do that and your basal metabolic rate lowers, reducing your ability to burn bodyfat. So there you have it, keep your intensity around 50% training heart rate, do it when the blood sugar level's low, and don't reduce your calorie level too low. The fat should just melt away. __________________ ¤´¨) ¸.·´¸.·´¨) ¸.·¨) (¸.·´ (¸.·`¤ Cheers ¤ Paul

10-12-2004, 01:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
Gridlock A diamond in the rough Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,228	Yeah, I was always told that to actually burn fat for fuel you need to be working at a very low level - one of my trainers used to say you need to jog at a pace where you can carry on a normal conversation with your partner. However I do think there is more than one way to burn fat The energy you use in a more intense workout has got to be replaced at some point - ie it will take some calories from your next meal or when you are resting the body will start to use some of your body fat to replace your depleated stores. The other thing that early morning exercise does is set your metabolism up for the day, so it stands to reason that the more intense your workout the more stoked your metabolism will be and the more calories you will burn at rest throughout the day. As hackski says - 150g of protien a day should prevent muscle catabolism __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.