That is exactly what Alan meant.
Lord knows I've nagged the crap out of him for any way to get more fat-burn out of my routines!
Diet Plateau..need some advice.
- Thread starter jokerswild1130
- Start date
That is exactly what Alan meant.
Lord knows I've nagged the crap out of him for any way to get more fat-burn out of my routines!
BikeSwimLaugh
Through most of the studies I have studied and from when I was studying kinesiology and sports medicine in school those were the facts that we found most accurate. Granted it is most likely a little old school. But the numbers do add up if you are burning fat rather then carbs for energy. Fat is 9 calories per gram and carbs are 4 calories per gram. So if you are only burning stored fat then you are in fact burning more calories and fat then if you had eaten something...BUT I do hear what you are saying about your cardio intensity being better after you have eaten something...which is completely true...The doing cardio on an empty stomach in the morning theory works mainly from a low intensity cardio where you stay in your stable fat burning heart rate zone. Biking up hills and doing intervals is a whole different story. You NEED more than just stored fat as energy for that high intensity of cardio. I totally agree with you on that.
TFV....
You're working the equation from the wrong end. When you CONSUME food, a gram of fat renders 9 calories of energy for your body to use, whereas a gram of carbs renders 4 calories. You're talking about the energy derived from eating food. Food is digested and essentially broken down into glucose...it's then stored in your muscle & liver as glycogen, and once those reserves are full, the remainder is stored in your fat. This is all energy coming IN.
When exercising, we're talking about calories being burned, or going OUT. It has nothing to do with fat having 9 calories or carbs having 4.
I believe what you are suggesting is that by exercising in our "Fat-burning zone", we somehow connect with this 9-calorie fat vs. 4-calorie carbs. I surmize you're also suggesting that if we were to kick it up a notch and workout in a higher zone, we'd be burning less fat and less calories as well?
As I mentioned, the body burns a combination of several sources of enegy (fuels)....but at a low-rate, fat eventually becomes a primary source. When you workout harder, you'll burn less fat in proportion to glycogen, but you'll still overall burn more calories from fat then if you worked-out at a lower intensity.
We've hammered this subject several times on the forum.
I'm gonna lay it out. I'm not trying to rile ya, call you out or give you a hard time...I bet you're an amazing fighter and I don't doubt that you have some good experience with developing workouts and standing-out in the fitness community.....but your knowledge of nutrition and understanding of things is just not there. The logic entirely fails to follow. Perhaps you could explain differently/better?
BikeSwimLaugh
You may be right. I am just going with what I have learned and found to be most effective. I usually say the proof is in the puding. And to me my body is the proof in the puding. My body and body fat % as well as others has shown to me that what ever I am doing and having others do is working. This is why I stand behind what I have learned and experimented with. But there is always a million different explanations for everything. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. So Im not arguing with you or anything but this is just my understanding of things. But I am going to research a little more and try to come up with a better explanation for the theory I have come to know.
And this debate is what makes this site stand out from the other fitness websites I have looked at. The level of debate and the knowledge and facts presented alone serve as an excellent resource.
I can not put any science behind it. You'd think a pound of fat is a pound of fat and all stored fat, regardless of how long it's been on the body, would burn or be consumed for energy at the same rate.
What I've observed is that you can take 2 people. One who put-on 50 pounds over the last couple years, and another person who has been fat all their lives. For reasons that elude my explanation and to which I can not reference any science to explain, the person who put the weight on over the last couple years will shed their fat faster...while the fatty-4-life will have a much MUCH tougher time. I'll ask my nutritionist about this when next I see him.
I do burn a LOT of calories, I can average 15-18 hours of exercise per week sometimes. I have lost fat at approx. .7 -1 pound per week. I've also stacked-on a heap of muscle. I'm not in starvation mode; you don't build muscle while you're starving.
The trainer to which I'm referring to (Peter) instructs a senior swim-ercise class...he works with the old-folks crowd. I met him about 5 months ago, he's about 45 and looked like a pear. Every week that guy looked slimmer & trimmer. With just moderate cardio and a reduction in his bread/beer, he dropped some 37 pounds in 1/3 the time it took me to lose the same amount. He is not muscular, not in the least....he's got a jello-build, okay...maybe pudding, but it's not firm or muscular.
I'm 5' 8" and my body-fat% is digital-caliper measured by a certified nutritionist (and author of the article Wrangell made reference to) at 11.8%...which would suggest I'm rather lean; yet I weigh 225 frickin' pounds. In the words of Bruce Willis, in the awesome movie The 5th Element..."I am a meat popsicle". Look it up
I hope we can agree that fasted cardio does not burn more calories than non-fasted cardio. I also hope we can agree that fat utilisation is a function of exercise intensity and body conditioning.
For me, that is enough to give it a go - each person makes their own choice.
I still don't like the 'fat you've had for a long time' approach. There is an explanation wrt metabolism. Maybe someone can shed some light.
I think it will be unproductive to address the specific case of your trainer any further. The points I brought up are still very possible - and researching them will be more enabling than simply saying 'fat you've had for a long time".
If you were loosing fat in that nice range while burning many calories you may have been eating up to a healthy deficit. The poster has been loosing fat at a much faster rate. The poster has not given any evidence of tracking his/her caloric intake. The poster is already talking about being hungry and reducing caloric intake further in an attemp to break the plateu. All good reasons to introduce the concept of starvation mode.
Last edited:
Based on your knowledge of " kinesiology and sports medicine " , what would would you say is the generally accepted range for the " fat burning zone " in terms of .....
- VO2 max ?
- % Maximum Heart Rate ?
- % Maximum Heart Rate ?
Class act!!!!
The very fact that you can concede that you might be in error more then suggest you're a solid person: you're more interested in learning & knowledge then you are in 'being right'.....points to ya bro!
And hey...I've more then abused this forum with several presentations of my "theories" that don't hold an ounce of science or clinic studies to support 'em. Who can forget "Last Morsel Theory"
As FlyinFree is fond of saying...I don't have an edumacation, but I have some serious experience to back-up what I say. If you found something that works for you, then there it is, I just hope your proverbial pudding is a low-sugar, low-carb, protein-enhanced, amino-acid fortified chocolate dish.
From my perspective, I'm more then happy to listen to anyone who has a body-fat % of less then 5%!! ...even if your picture sorta looks a bit like a beat-up muscle-version of Adam Sandler
It never hurts to listen....and discuss, glad we're doing it amicably.
MB1, I don't have any science to back-up the theory that long-term-stored fat is more stubborn to burn-off then short-term-gained fat. All I can tell you is that I've seen a lot of fairly fit people gain a bunch of weight over a relatively short period of time....and it's as though their body just shakes off the pounds the moment they cut-back on carbs and do a bit of exercise. That guy Peter dumped his poundage like a toilet flushes! On the flip-side, fatties-4-life like myself struggle against adverse odds to work each darn ounce of fat off our body. Why is this? I don't know! But darned if it isn't a consistent thing!!! Don't wrap your brain around it too much, I'll ask my nutritionist and see what I can find out....but in the end, it doesn't matter: we're each dealt our cards....some of us effortless build muscle and are thin, others struggle. Do the best you can, make the most of things and life goes on...
Well, if the " fat burning zone " includes a Vo2 max as high as 85% and a % MHR as high as 90%, I'd consider both of these values to be quite " high " ....and is " high intensity " cardio....... wouldn't you ?
Especially as it pertains to your earlier comment in which you said........
" The doing cardio on an empty stomach in the morning theory works mainly from a low intensity cardio where you stay in your stable fat burning heart rate zone "
...in which you seem to suggest the fat burning zone ( 50%-85% Vox 2 max in your view ) is actually more closely associated with low intensity cardio...whereas Alan places moderate intensity at only 63-68% VO2 max ( or approx 77% - 81% MHR ).
How does a high value of 80% - 90% % MHR - i.e the fat burning zone - then also become associated with a low intensity form of cardio ?
Am I interpreting your comments correctly ?
So....the consensus suggestion for me?
' you burn 300% more calories if you do morning cardio on an empty stomach '
Interesting.
So, I get up, have a light breakfast, and then a short while later I do 30 minutes of steady state low intensity cardio, that for arguments sake, lets' say ......burns 250 calories.
Are you saying that ( all other things being equal ) if I hadn't had any breakfast I would have actually burned 300% more calories ?
In other words , I would have burned 750 calories ( 3 X 250 ) - i.e 300% more - instead of 250 calories ?
Is that what you're saying ?
Last edited:
So....the consensus suggestion for me?
Here's my take.
It seems you want to lose fat and apart from all the diet changes you've made and weight training you're doing, you've decided you also want to dedicate 30 minutes of cardio a day toward that goal.
Fair enough.
My view is a simple one. Losing fat is about losing calories. And when it comes to steady state cardio at least, ( all other things being equal ) the higher intensity at which you train, the more calories you burn during those 30 minutes. So, if would go as hard as I could .... sustaining this pace for a steady 30 minutes. Why ? Because a high intensity steady state pace burns more calories than if you went at a low / moderate intensity steady state pace.
.
Then there is HIIT. Another good choice. It too burns a lot of calories ( burned both during and after exercise ). And, is a better choice for your 30 minutes - for fat loss - when compared to low / moderate intensity steady state cardio. However, the extent to which 30 minutes of HIIT is better than 30 minutes of steady state high intensity cardio is something I'm less certain of.
Last edited:
I dont think you are interpreting it correctly...Well if you are saying Alan's numbers are moderate to low intensity...77%-81%...those numbers are just the average of the numbers I said...meaning that it is still in the same range...
Say your light breakfast is 250 calories as well, and you burn 250 calories in your cardio workout. Then you are burning at a 100% rate. Now say you did not eat that breakfast of 250 calories...And you burn 250 stored calories, then that is a 200% rate. 500 calories would be a 300% rate.
I hope that explains it.
Im doing HIIT 3 times a week and doing 30 minutes of SS cardio after my workouts. I tried adding HIIT after my full body workouts but found that my body is too wiped out from the weight training to get a high intensity interval workout in with any real success. On my SS cardio days (post weight training) I have ramped up the intensity to allow my heart rate to remain at a higher level.
I guess my question really is...should I increase my calorie intake so I am only in a 500 calorie deficit daily or would I be better served in cutting carbs below 100 grams a day and increasing protein?
Intense weight training is primarily an anaerobic activity and as a result you derive the majority of the energy you need to fuel those sorts of workouts from glycogen. And, carbs are normally the primary source of fuel you need for creating glycogen. In other words, carbs are critical in optimizing your performance during intense weight training sessions IMO.
In the same way, HIIT is also an intense anaerobic activity that relies heavily on carbs / glycogen for fuel. And, higher intensity steady state cardio also places on significant reliance on carbs / glycogen for fuel as well.
So, within the context I provided above, I think " cutting carbs below 100 grams a day " is a ludicrous idea.
In fact, for what it's worth, anytime I was involved in heavy duty ' intense ' training ( mostly during my hockey days ), I took in at least 50% ( up to 60%+ ) of my diet from carbs and still kept very lean in the process ( i.e sub 10% body fat ).
Last edited:
No I'm not.
If I'm only training at ' low intensity ' , the bulk of my fuel is from stored fat and to a lesser extent stored glycogen and some glucose as well.
Unfortunately, that is not what you said. You said.....
" cardio to mornings on and empty stomach since you burn 300% more calories that way "
......in other words it reads as " calories burned " would go up by 300%. Nonetheless, lets focus on the issue of actual " calories burned " for a moment, just so I fully understand your point.
So in other words, given........
A: You eat 250 calories ( your example ) , you do 30 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio , and you burn 250 calories
B: You eat nothing, you do 30 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio , and you burn ' X ' calories
B: You eat nothing, you do 30 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio , and you burn ' X ' calories
Based on your knowledge of " kinesiology and sports medicine " - and the studies in this area - what would your best educated guess be as to the value of ' X " in B ?
Would " X " be approximately, for example ...
- 250 calories ?
- 325 calories ?
- 500 calories ?
- 750 calories ?
- 325 calories ?
- 500 calories ?
- 750 calories ?
...or some other value ? Thoughts ?
.
Last edited: