Fat burning 101 (bit long, sorry)

[Jasonforst]

I have a pretty good idea (I think) of what I need to be doing
to get in shape but there's a few blank spaces in my
understanding of things I would like to know more about. I've
wasted a lot of the last 4 years, since I started training
regularly, doing stuff that wasn't really going to get me to
my goals. These are firstly to trim off the flab and secondly
get some definition, especially in my arms and stomach. Right
now I just want to lose the flab. I think my calorie intake is
about right for my age and size (34, 6'4") I've avoided fatty
stuff but I may have overdone it a little on carbohydrates. I
haven't and I don't intend to calorie count, three square
meals of the right foods and when I have to only snacking on
appropriate foodstuffs. (I'm lucky in that my girlfriend works
at a health food store, they do some mean malt extract rice
cakes, very tasty, highly recommended) Because I am happy to
go balls out on training, so I'm confidant I'll burn any
excess carbohydrates there may be. I have only recently
started getting strict with myself though but I've always
steered clear of the major danger foods like crisps (chips)
and deep fried chips (french fries), ice cream, chocolate etc.
I don't drink heavily or often, I don't smoke (as of last
year) either (still on that gum though!)

My main problem is that I was quite overweight, around the
torso, (and chest, not pretty!) when I started training and
though I've trimmed it a bit I can't seem to get rid of the
last few pounds. There's bits wobbling about when I lean
forward that ain't supposed to! I started running last year,
with a small amount of weight lifting. I also got one of those
D shaped abdo trim wotsits for doing crunches with. Things
were going well then I slacked off over Xmas and put a lot of
it back on. I started running again and have been doing it
roughly 3-4 times a week for the last 3 months, sometimes 6
miles a session and I can't say it's made much difference. I
have done a bit of weight training, but not regularly and
haven't bothered with my abs at all. I now understand that I
have been carb burning rather than fat burning and there was
me all cocky that I was burning fat as I'm plodding along
bathed in sweat, duh!

Time for yet another rethink. I now know the thing about the
burn rate, mine's roughly 111bpm going by the formula. Thing
is can I still get that by running or is too difficult to keep
a low enough heart rate when you're running? If so, fair
enough, exercise bike it is (and I was on the verge of selling
it!) but it's so boring. I loved running it was a grassy track
as well so the impact damage was very minimal. I'm too self
conscious right now to go swimming so that's out. It's really
a question of maximum effect in minimum time is what I'm
looking for here. On the bike I do about 30-45 minutes at
about 70-80 rpm with a bit of resistance, my legs start to
ache a little after about 20 minutes but I also start to sweat
which means I'm hitting the carb burn doesn't it? I've assumed
it is so I've then slowed it down a little just in case. Have
I got it wrong there? I have also started lifting weights more
regularly, rather than once or very occasionally twice a week
down the gym. I have free weights at home but I'm just using a
dumbbell for now, alternating between arms and doing 4 sets of
twelve reps on each arm, each set different - hammer curl,
curl, deadlift, underarm lift (might have the names wrong
there). I've also started using the abdo D thing again and
doing 3-4 sets of 20.

I think that covers it, so anyone got the answers I'm looking
for? Or just some good advice??

Cheers Jay

[Frank In-T]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:19:55 +0100, "JasonForster"
<jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I think my calorie intake is about right for my age and size
>(34, 6'4") I've avoided fatty stuff but I may have overdone
>it a little on carbohydrates. I haven't and I don't intend to
>calorie count,
you can think and say what you want, but if you're goal is to
lose weight and you're not, well, let me put this gently...
you're eating too much or not working out enough. Either way
you're taking in more calories than you use.

you don't want to count? fine. then just take reduce the daily
total number of calories by 300 or 400. see what happens in a
few weeks.

i found using fitday.com for a few weeks gave me a lot of
insight into what i was eating. The mix of protein, fat and
carbs and the total calories/day also. I don't use it anymore
because now I know what to do. But in a month or two I might
use it again to see if I'm still on track. It takes about 10
minutes a day to plunk in what I eat. Most of it is a repeat
from yesterday so it's pretty quick. Give it a try for a bit.
You'll be surprised how badly (or conversely well) you're
eating. Think about your goals. Are you getting enough
protein? enough/too litle fat? the right amount of carbs?
Fitday will help you determine what you might want to change
in your diet.

You mentioned 111 as your target heart rate for "burn". Seems
a might low to me for a 34 year old. Maybe rethink that
concept. It's not held in high repute. ...thehick

[Jasonforst]

> i found using fitday.com for a few weeks gave me a lot of
> insight into what i was eating. The mix of protein, fat and
> carbs and the total calories/day also. I don't use it
> anymore because now I know what to do. But in a month or two
> I might use it again to see if I'm still on track. It takes
> about 10 minutes a day to plunk in what I eat. Most of it is
> a repeat from yesterday so it's pretty quick. Give it a try
> for a bit. You'll be surprised how badly (or conversely
> well) you're eating. Think about your goals. Are you getting
> enough protein? enough/too litle fat? the right amount of
> carbs? Fitday will help you determine what you might want to
> change in your diet.

Ok, wouldn't hurt to try.

> You mentioned 111 as your target heart rate for "burn".
> Seems a might low to me for a 34 year old. Maybe rethink
> that concept. It's not held in high repute. ...thehick

It isn't? That's what I love about this fitness thing,
absolutely nobody agrees on anything! The guy at my gym
entered my age into one of the machines and that's what it
came out with. It's 220 minus your age times 60% as far as I'm
aware. The ideal fat burn rate, a bit of effort but not too
much or you're in carb burn territory. I've seen this
mentioned a few times so I'm quite confident it's right.

Jay

[Jak]

"JasonForster" <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:aiaclp$v0h$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> > You mentioned 111 as your target heart rate for "burn".
> > Seems a might low to me for a 34 year old. Maybe rethink
> > that concept. It's not held in high repute. ...thehick
>
> It isn't? That's what I love about this fitness thing,
> absolutely nobody agrees on anything! The guy at my gym
> entered my age into one of the machines and that's what it
> came out with. It's 220 minus your age times
60%
> as far as I'm aware. The ideal fat burn rate, a bit of
> effort but not too much or you're in carb burn territory.
> I've seen this mentioned a few
times
> so I'm quite confident it's right.
>
> Jay

The previous poster is right. Not only is the theory of the
"fat burning" zone not held in high repute, it's downright
nonsense from a scientific point of view. In the first place
the 220 - age formula (and also any other max heart rate
formulae) is only an average based on the general population.
You don't have to estimate your maximum heart rate, get your
butt on a treadmill with a pulse monitor and test it yourself.
Unless you have physical limitations that would prevent you
from this type of exertion, you can get a much better estimate
of your maximum heart rate this way than from a formula.

In the second place, whether you use fat or stored
glycogen as your exercise energy source, has no impact on
losing fat from your body. What counts is the total
calories of energy expended. Even if it did matter, you
burn more fat calories at higher intensities. 111 bpm is
extremely low intensity for a 34 year old, at that rate
you're unlikely to see much improvement in your fitness
level or lose much bodyfat from exercise.

JAK

[Sam]

"JasonForster" <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:aiaclp$v0h$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > i found using fitday.com for a few weeks gave me a lot of
> > insight into what i was eating. The mix of protein, fat
> > and carbs and the total calories/day also. I don't use it
> > anymore because now I know what to do. But in a month or
> > two I might use it again to see if I'm still on track. It
> > takes about 10 minutes a day to plunk in what I eat. Most
> > of it is a repeat from yesterday so it's pretty quick.
> > Give it a try for a bit. You'll be surprised how badly (or
> > conversely well) you're eating. Think about your goals.
> > Are you getting enough protein? enough/too litle fat? the
> > right amount of carbs? Fitday will help you determine what
> > you might want to change in your diet.
>
> Ok, wouldn't hurt to try.
>
> > You mentioned 111 as your target heart rate for "burn".
> > Seems a might low to me for a 34 year old. Maybe rethink
> > that concept. It's not held in high repute. ...thehick
>
> It isn't? That's what I love about this fitness thing,
> absolutely nobody agrees on anything! The guy at my gym
> entered my age into one of the machines and that's what it
> came out with. It's 220 minus your age times
60%
> as far as I'm aware. The ideal fat burn rate, a bit of
> effort but not too much or you're in carb burn territory.
> I've seen this mentioned a few
times
> so I'm quite confident it's right.
>
> Jay
>
Jay, the fat burning myth has been a misunderstanding
of how the body works.
1) The body burns a mixture of fuels for energy except for
folks like 100m sprinters during high efforts lasting a few
seconds. Come to think of it, 100m sprinters are not
exactly fat and yet they do virtually nothing except
walking around in the fat burning zone.
2) The key to fat loss is to expend more energy than you take
in. The fuel you use makes no difference. Do a google for
PubMed and then do a search for an author Benardot (he is
not the lead author but I never can remember how to spell
the lead author's name but it is something like
Grediagan). You will get an abstract that shows exercising
at a higher intensity actually causes a greater fat loss.
The key is that the exercise sessions expended the same
amount of energy. You can go longer at a lower intensity
and expend more energy especially in the beginning of an
exercise program. There are many other studies that report
similar results.
3) It is true that at a lower intensity there is a higher
PERCENTAGE of energy from fatty acid oxidation, but it is
a large percentage of a small number. Upping the intensity
expends more calories.

When starting out, keep the intensity low to develop a base.
After you have achieved some fitness, increase the intensity
and one day a week do a high intensity workout (assuming doc
says that you should be able to do it).

[ahall]

>>>>> JasonForster writes:

>> i found using fitday.com for a few weeks gave me a lot
>> of insight into what i was eating. The mix of protein,
>> fat and carbs and the total calories/day also. I don't
>> use it anymore because now I know what to do. But in a
>> month or two I might use it again to see if I'm still on
>> track. It takes about 10 minutes a day to plunk in what
>> I eat. Most of it is a repeat from yesterday so it's
>> pretty quick. Give it a try for a bit. You'll be
>> surprised how badly (or conversely well) you're eating.
>> Think about your goals. Are you getting enough protein?
>> enough/too litle fat? the right amount of carbs? Fitday
>> will help you determine what you might want to change in
>> your diet.

JasonForster> Ok, wouldn't hurt to try.

>> You mentioned 111 as your target heart rate for "burn".
>> Seems a might low to me for a 34 year old. Maybe rethink
>> that concept. It's not held in high repute. ...thehick

JasonForster> It isn't? That's what I love about this
JasonForster> fitness thing, absolutely nobody agrees on
JasonForster> anything! The guy at my gym entered my age
JasonForster> into one of the machines and that's what it
JasonForster> came out with. It's 220 minus your age times
JasonForster> 60% as far as I'm aware. The ideal fat burn
JasonForster> rate, a bit of effort but not too much or
JasonForster> you're in carb burn territory. I've seen this
JasonForster> mentioned a few times so I'm quite confident
JasonForster> it's right.

Burn the formula. The harder you go the more calories you
burn. It makes not one whit of difference where the calories
come from. As for hearing it a lot, I am sure you also hear
that to lose weight in the stomach, crunches will help. Total
nonsense dies hard.

--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in misc.fitness.aerobic...)

[Jasonforst]

> The previous poster is right. Not only is the theory of the
> "fat burning" zone not held in high repute, it's downright
> nonsense from a scientific point of view. In the first place
> the 220 - age formula (and also any
other
> max heart rate formulae) is only an average based on
> the general
population.
> You don't have to estimate your maximum heart rate, get your
> butt on a treadmill with a pulse monitor and test it
> yourself. Unless you have physical limitations that would
> prevent you from this type of exertion,
you
> can get a much better estimate of your maximum heart rate
> this way than
from
> a formula.

(sigh) You would think in this day and age it would have
been established once and for all what the right way to
lose fat is.

I can definitely better 111, but I don't know what my max is.
I've clocked myself at pushing 160 but that doesn't mean I
couldn't get higher. Does anyone know a good place to go on
the web to get pulse monitors?

> In the second place, whether you use fat or stored
> glycogen as your
exercise
> energy source, has no impact on losing fat from your body.
> What counts is the total calories of energy expended. Even
> if it did matter, you burn
more
> fat calories at higher intensities. 111 bpm is extremely low
> intensity
for
> a 34 year old, at that rate you're unlikely to see much
> improvement in
your
> fitness level or lose much bodyfat from exercise.

Ok so it's a case of more effort. I guess my 6 mile run is at
too steady a pace, so should I be looking at doing say a 2
mile run at a quicker pace?

Jay

[Jasonforst]

> Burn the formula. The harder you go the more calories you
> burn. It makes not one whit of difference where the calories
> come from. As for hearing it a lot, I am sure you also hear
> that to lose weight in the stomach, crunches will help.
> Total nonsense dies hard.

When you are working a muscle group you draw energy from the
nearest fat reserve aren't you? If that is true it would seem
logical that crunches are worthwhile as a gut buster exercise.

I think the main purpose is it helps support the fat better
though so it doesn't droop so much.

Jay

[Jasonforst]

> > It isn't? That's what I love about this fitness thing,
> > absolutely nobody agrees on anything! The guy at my gym
> > entered my age into one of the machines and that's what it
> > came out with. It's 220 minus your age times
> 60%
> > as far as I'm aware. The ideal fat burn rate, a bit of
> > effort but not
too
> > much or you're in carb burn territory. I've seen this
> > mentioned a few
> times
> > so I'm quite confident it's right.
> >
> > Jay
> >
> Jay, the fat burning myth has been a
> misunderstanding of how the body works.
> 1) The body burns a mixture of fuels for energy except for
> folks like 100m sprinters during high efforts lasting a
> few seconds. Come to think of
it,
> 100m sprinters are not exactly fat and yet they do
> virtually nothing
except
> walking around in the fat burning zone.
> 2) The key to fat loss is to expend more energy than you
> take in. The
fuel
> you use makes no difference. Do a google for PubMed and then
> do a search for an author Benardot (he is not the lead
> author but I never can remember how to spell the lead
> author's name but it is something like Grediagan).
You
> will get an abstract that shows exercising at a higher
> intensity actually causes a greater fat loss. The key is
> that the exercise sessions expended the same amount of
> energy. You can go longer at a lower intensity and expend
> more energy especially in the beginning of an exercise
> program. There are many other studies that report similar
> results.

Your phrasing threw me a little there, your'e saying high
intensity is good for what I'm aiming for right. So a short
period of heavy activity is better than a long period of high
activity or they basically work out about the same?

> 3) It is true that at a lower intensity there is a higher
> PERCENTAGE of energy from fatty acid oxidation, but it
> is a large percentage of a small number. Upping the
> intensity expends more calories.

Think I'm with you there, I'm not really up on the
science of this. Fatty acid oxidation sounds like a good
thing for my goals.

> When starting out, keep the intensity low to develop a base.
> After you
have
> achieved some fitness, increase the intensity and one day a
> week do a high intensity workout (assuming doc says that you
> should be able to do it).

If you mean starting out as in starting a regime then it's a
little late there as I've been at it for quite a while. If you
mean in a session then that's do-able. Stamina wise I can
handle the pace.

Someone suggested privately that it's even better to
alternate in a workout between high activity and low
activity. I like the sound of that as I much prefer high
activity anyway but I don't want to risk the chance of
picking the wrong side in this debate. I did a workout on the
bike tonight using that method and I have to say it felt
pretty good. Five minutes at 100rpm and then five minutes at
75rpm and then another five at 100 etc. Plus some crunches
and a few sets of reps with the dumbbell.

Jay

[ahall]

>>>>> JasonForster writes:

>> The previous poster is right. Not only is the theory of
>> the "fat burning" zone not held in high repute, it's
>> downright nonsense from a scientific point of view. In
>> the first place the 220 - age formula (and also any
JasonForster> other
>> max heart rate formulae) is only an average based on the
>> general
JasonForster> population.
>> You don't have to estimate your maximum heart rate, get
>> your butt on a treadmill with a pulse monitor and test
>> it yourself. Unless you have physical limitations that
>> would prevent you from this type of exertion,
JasonForster> you
>> can get a much better estimate of your maximum heart
>> rate this way than
JasonForster> from
>> a formula.

JasonForster> (sigh) You would think in this day and age it
JasonForster> would have been established once and for all
JasonForster> what the right way to lose fat is.

There are many right ways. Exercise and eat less than you burn
is at the heard of all.

JasonForster> I can definitely better 111, but I don't know
JasonForster> what my max is. I've clocked myself at
JasonForster> pushing 160 but that doesn't mean I couldn't
JasonForster> get higher. Does anyone know a good place to
JasonForster> go on the web to get pulse monitors?

--
Andrew Hall (Now reading Usenet in misc.fitness.aerobic...)

[nospam]

JasonForster <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
: When you are working a muscle group you draw energy from the
: nearest fat reserve aren't you? If that is true it would
: seem logical that crunches are worthwhile as a gut buster
: exercise.

You're wrong. That's not true.

HTH.

[Denise How]

In article <aicct8$kas$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, JasonForster
<jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> When you are working a muscle group you draw energy from the
> nearest fat reserve aren't you? If that is true it would
> seem logical that crunches are worthwhile as a gut buster
> exercise.

No. The energy to do the work comes from stores all over
your body.

> I think the main purpose is it helps support the fat better
> though so it doesn't droop so much.

What's going to support it? The collagen strands in your skin,
where the fat is, are not muscle. Skin is not muscle. All the
exercise in the world will not lift blubber.

--
Denise denise dot howard at attbi dot com ACE and AFAA
certified fitness instructor AFAA step certified

[Sam]

"JasonForster" <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:aicdmo$79q$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > It isn't? That's what I love about this fitness thing,
> > > absolutely
nobody
> > > agrees on anything! The guy at my gym entered my age
> > > into one of the machines and that's what it came out
> > > with. It's 220 minus your age
times
> > 60%
> > > as far as I'm aware. The ideal fat burn rate, a bit of
> > > effort but not
> too
> > > much or you're in carb burn territory. I've seen this
> > > mentioned a few
> > times
> > > so I'm quite confident it's right.
> > >
> > > Jay
> > >
> > Jay, the fat burning myth has been a
> > misunderstanding of how the body works.
> > 1) The body burns a mixture of fuels for energy except for
> > folks like
100m
> > sprinters during high efforts lasting a few seconds. Come
> > to think of
> it,
> > 100m sprinters are not exactly fat and yet they do
> > virtually nothing
> except
> > walking around in the fat burning zone.
> > 2) The key to fat loss is to expend more energy than you
> > take in. The
> fuel
> > you use makes no difference. Do a google for PubMed and
> > then do a
search
> > for an author Benardot (he is not the lead author but I
> > never can
remember
> > how to spell the lead author's name but it is something
> > like Grediagan).
> You
> > will get an abstract that shows exercising at a higher
> > intensity
actually
> > causes a greater fat loss. The key is that the exercise
> > sessions
expended
> > the same amount of energy. You can go longer at a lower
> > intensity and expend more energy especially in the
> > beginning of an exercise program. There are many other
> > studies that report similar results.
>
> Your phrasing threw me a little there, your'e saying high
> intensity is
good
> for what I'm aiming for right. So a short period of heavy
> activity is
better
> than a long period of high activity or they basically work
> out about the same?
If your goal is to expend 300kcals in a session
(about 3 miles of running) you have several
choices as to intensity: You can run at
10min/mile pace and take 30min for the workout or 8min/mile
pace and finish it in 24 min. Where weight loss is
concerned, it does not matter although there is some
evidence that the higher intensity will lead to greater
fat loss (thus the reference to Benardot and also
Ballor). Let's take someone training for a marathon, a
long run (15+ miles) will expend more energy than a
shorter, faster run of say 8 miles only because the
distance covered is greater. It might be possible (I
have not done the math)that an interval covering 8 miles
might expend as much energy. The point is that the type
of fuel you use for the exercise does not matter.

>
> > 3) It is true that at a lower intensity there is a higher
> > PERCENTAGE of energy from fatty acid oxidation, but it
> > is a large percentage of a
small
> > number. Upping the intensity expends more calories.
>
> Think I'm with you there, I'm not really up on the science
> of this. Fatty acid oxidation sounds like a good thing for
> my goals.

That is the problem: people are not up on science
:( especially reporters and many club trained
"personal trainers". They hear that low intensity
exercise uses a higher percentage of fat and
automatically assume that is the way to go
without understanding it is the energy deficit
that matters.

>
> > When starting out, keep the intensity low to develop a
> > base. After you
> have
> > achieved some fitness, increase the intensity and one day
> > a week do a
high
> > intensity workout (assuming doc says that you should be
> > able to do it).
>
> If you mean starting out as in starting a regime then it's a
> little late there as I've been at it for quite a while. If
> you mean in a session then that's do-able. Stamina wise I
> can handle the pace.

11) I could not remember where you were in
your training
12) I put that in for people who are just
beginning and reading this thread
13) Starting out easy with a warm up is always
a good idea

>
> Someone suggested privately that it's even better to
> alternate in a
workout
> between high activity and low activity. I like the sound of
> that as I much prefer high activity anyway but I don't want
> to risk the chance of picking the wrong side in this debate.
> I did a workout on the bike tonight using that method and I
> have to say it felt pretty good. Five minutes at 100rpm and
> then five minutes at 75rpm and then another five at 100 etc.
> Plus some crunches and a few sets of reps with the dumbbell.

I think a mix of intensities is important for a
training effect. One cannot do high intensity all
the time. The bike workout you describe above is a
form of interval training. On the bike varying the
cadence changes the nature of the bike workout but
that is another story.......

>
> Jay

[Sam]

"Denise Howard" <denise@invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:010820022001085563%denise@invalid.domain...
> In article <aicct8$kas$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, JasonForster
> <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > When you are working a muscle group you draw energy from
> > the nearest fat reserve aren't you? If that is true it
> > would seem logical that crunches
are
> > worthwhile as a gut buster exercise.
>
> No. The energy to do the work comes from stores all over
> your body.

Except for the case of muscle glycogen usage and
then it is group specific, but Denise is correct
and this is the old "spot reducing" notion. Also
crunches expend very little energy. If you were
looking to lose weight just doing crunches, you
would need to do them all day (okay a bit over
the top). The key to losing the fat around the
midsection is aerobic activity. Many people have
incredibly strong abs, you see them in the
weight room a lot, but they have a nice layer of
insulation hiding it. Rulon Gardner, the Olympic
champion in Greco Roman wrestling can do some
incredible ab workouts but has he got a six
pack? Well he probably does but it is cover with
a big tent.

>
> > I think the main purpose is it helps support the fat
> > better though so
it
> > doesn't droop so much.
>
> What's going to support it? The collagen strands in your
> skin, where the fat is, are not muscle. Skin is not muscle.
> All the exercise in the world will not lift blubber.
>
> --
> Denise denise dot howard at attbi dot com ACE and AFAA
> certified fitness instructor AFAA step certified

[Jasonforst]

> > Your phrasing threw me a little there, your'e saying high
> > intensity is
> good
> > for what I'm aiming for right. So a short period of heavy
> > activity is
> better
> > than a long period of high activity or they basically work
> > out about the same?
> If your goal is to expend 300kcals in a session
> (about 3 miles of running) you have several
> choices as to intensity: You can run at
> 10min/mile pace and take 30min for the workout or 8min/mile
> pace and
finish
> it in 24 min. Where weight loss is concerned, it does not
> matter although there is some evidence that the higher
> intensity will lead to greater fat loss (thus the reference
> to Benardot and also Ballor). Let's take someone training
> for a marathon, a long run (15+ miles) will expend more
> energy than a shorter, faster run of say 8 miles only
> because the distance covered is greater. It might be
> possible (I
have
> not done the math)that an interval covering 8 miles might
> expend as much energy.

I increased my distance and I wasn't losing fat. I was gearing
up to have a crack at a 12 mile run as well until I was told
(misinformed apparantly) that I could run 100 miles and not
lose any fat if my heart rate was too high. By your theory I
should have been losing fat though. ??? I couldn't have put
any more effort in, (I would do the odd burst of speed, as
long as I could maintain it ) and I was sweating a fair
amount. I dunno, something wasn't right.

> The point is that the type of fuel you use for
> the exercise
does
> not matter.

Not sure why you mentioned that, this isn't what this
discussion is about.

> > > 3) It is true that at a lower intensity there is a
> > > higher PERCENTAGE
of
> > > energy from fatty acid oxidation, but it is a large
> > > percentage of a
> small
> > > number. Upping the intensity expends more calories.
> >
> > Think I'm with you there, I'm not really up on the science
> > of this.
Fatty
> > acid oxidation sounds like a good thing for my goals.
>
> That is the problem: people are not up on
> science :(
especially
> reporters and many club trained "personal trainers". They
> hear that low intensity exercise uses a higher percentage of
> fat and automatically
assume
> that is the way to go without understanding it is the energy
> deficit that matters.

The guy that gave me the original advice, on low intensity
being best, has done an NVQ, which for the benefit of those
outside the UK is a national, officially recognised
qualification. The gym didn't teach him, that's what people
are learning up and down the country. If they are being taught
BS then the UK might overtake the US for obesity!

> > > When starting out, keep the intensity low to develop a
> > > base. After
you
> > have
> > > achieved some fitness, increase the intensity and one
> > > day a week do a
> high
> > > intensity workout (assuming doc says that you should be
> > > able to do
it).
> >
> > If you mean starting out as in starting a regime then it's
> > a little late there as I've been at it for quite a while.
> > If you mean in a session
then
> > that's do-able. Stamina wise I can handle the pace.
>
> 1) I could not remember where you were in your
> training
> 2) I put that in for people who are just
> beginning and
reading
> this thread
> 3) Starting out easy with a warm up is always a
> good idea

Fair enough. That's how I'm doing it anyway the way I'm
training.

> > Someone suggested privately that it's even better to
> > alternate in a
> workout
> > between high activity and low activity. I like the sound
> > of that as I
much
> > prefer high activity anyway but I don't want to risk the
> > chance of
picking
> > the wrong side in this debate. I did a workout on the bike
> > tonight using that method and I have to say it felt pretty
> > good. Five minutes at
100rpm
> > and then five minutes at 75rpm and then another five at
> > 100 etc. Plus
some
> > crunches and a few sets of reps with the dumbbell.
>
> I think a mix of intensities is important for a
> training
effect.
> One cannot do high intensity all the time. The bike workout
> you describe above is a form of interval training. On the
> bike varying the cadence changes the nature of the bike
> workout but that is another story.......
>

Let's just stick to fat burning for now!! The person who
suggested 'interval training' for me did use that term. Third
time today. I actually seem to sweat a lot more doing that for
45 minutes then I did running for 2 hours. If sweating can be
used as any sort of measure of the effort put in then this is
definitely a better way for me to train to get my goal. Guess
I won't be doing the London Marathon this year then!

Jay

[Jasonforst]

> > When you are working a muscle group you draw energy from
> > the nearest fat reserve aren't you? If that is true it
> > would seem logical that crunches
are
> > worthwhile as a gut buster exercise.
>
> No. The energy to do the work comes from stores all over
> your body.

Ok, well there isn't a lot anywhere else, my arms and legs
aren't that fat and my backside has virtually disappeared! I
look like some sort of 4 legged spider!! If I was a girl
people would think I was pregnant.

> > I think the main purpose is it helps support the fat
> > better though so
it
> > doesn't droop so much.
>
> What's going to support it? The collagen strands in your
> skin, where the fat is, are not muscle. Skin is not muscle.
> All the exercise in the world will not lift blubber.

Well if I had a **huge** beergut that would be true but mine
isn't **that** big and it's definitely looking just a weeny
bit flatter since I started doing crunches again. Can still
grab a handful though. :(

Jay

[Stephen Di]

In article <aidksk$dnp$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, "Sam"
<marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The key to losing the fat around the midsection is aerobic
> activity.

Are you saying that aerobic activity effects a
redistribution of fat?

Stephen Diamond

[Sam]

How do you know if you have not lost fat?

The comment below that the fuel you use does not matter is
exactly what this discussion is about.

"JasonForster" <jayandhel@itandhappy.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:aifaa9$7em$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > Your phrasing threw me a little there, your'e saying
> > > high intensity is
> > good
> > > for what I'm aiming for right. So a short period of
> > > heavy activity is
> > better
> > > than a long period of high activity or they basically
> > > work out about
the
> > > same?
> > If your goal is to expend 300kcals in a
> > session (about 3
miles
> > of running) you have several choices as to intensity: You
> > can run at
> > 10min/mile pace and take 30min for the workout or
> > 8min/mile pace and
> finish
> > it in 24 min. Where weight loss is concerned, it does not
> > matter
although
> > there is some evidence that the higher intensity will lead
> > to greater
fat
> > loss (thus the reference to Benardot and also Ballor).
> > Let's take someone training for a marathon, a long run
> > (15+ miles) will expend more energy than a shorter, faster
> > run of say 8 miles only because the distance covered is
> > greater. It might be possible (I
> have
> > not done the math)that an interval covering 8 miles might
> > expend as much energy.
>
> I increased my distance and I wasn't losing fat. I was
> gearing up to have
a
> crack at a 12 mile run as well until I was told (misinformed
> apparantly) that I could run 100 miles and not lose any fat
> if my heart rate was too high. By your theory I should have
> been losing fat though. ??? I couldn't have put any more
> effort in, (I would do the odd burst of speed, as long
as
> I could maintain it ) and I was sweating a fair amount. I
> dunno, something wasn't right.
>
> > The point is that the type of fuel you use for
> > the exercise
> does
> > not matter.
>
> Not sure why you mentioned that, this isn't what this
> discussion is about.
>
> > > > 3) It is true that at a lower intensity there is a
> > > > higher
PERCENTAGE
> of
> > > > energy from fatty acid oxidation, but it is a large
> > > > percentage of a
> > small
> > > > number. Upping the intensity expends more calories.
> > >
> > > Think I'm with you there, I'm not really up on the
> > > science of this.
> Fatty
> > > acid oxidation sounds like a good thing for my goals.
> >
> > That is the problem: people are not up on
> > science :(
> especially
> > reporters and many club trained "personal trainers". They
> > hear that low intensity exercise uses a higher percentage
> > of fat and automatically
> assume
> > that is the way to go without understanding it is the
> > energy deficit
that
> > matters.
>
> The guy that gave me the original advice, on low intensity
> being best, has done an NVQ, which for the benefit of those
> outside the UK is a national, officially recognised
> qualification. The gym didn't teach him, that's what people
> are learning up and down the country. If they are being
> taught BS then the UK might overtake the US for obesity!
>
> > > > When starting out, keep the intensity low to develop a
> > > > base. After
> you
> > > have
> > > > achieved some fitness, increase the intensity and one
> > > > day a week do
a
> > high
> > > > intensity workout (assuming doc says that you should
> > > > be able to do
> it).
> > >
> > > If you mean starting out as in starting a regime then
> > > it's a little
late
> > > there as I've been at it for quite a while. If you mean
> > > in a session
> then
> > > that's do-able. Stamina wise I can handle the pace.
> >
> > 1) I could not remember where you were in
> > your training
> > 2) I put that in for people who are just
> > beginning and
> reading
> > this thread
> > 3) Starting out easy with a warm up is always
> > a good idea
>
> Fair enough. That's how I'm doing it anyway the way I'm
> training.
>
> > > Someone suggested privately that it's even better to
> > > alternate in a
> > workout
> > > between high activity and low activity. I like the sound
> > > of that as I
> much
> > > prefer high activity anyway but I don't want to risk the
> > > chance of
> picking
> > > the wrong side in this debate. I did a workout on the
> > > bike tonight
using
> > > that method and I have to say it felt pretty good. Five
> > > minutes at
> 100rpm
> > > and then five minutes at 75rpm and then another five at
> > > 100 etc. Plus
> some
> > > crunches and a few sets of reps with the dumbbell.
> >
> > I think a mix of intensities is important for
> > a training
> effect.
> > One cannot do high intensity all the time. The bike
> > workout you
describe
> > above is a form of interval training. On the bike varying
> > the cadence changes the nature of the bike workout but
> > that is another story.......
> >
>
> Let's just stick to fat burning for now!! The person who
> suggested 'interval training' for me did use that term.
Third
> time today. I actually seem to sweat a lot more doing that
> for 45 minutes then I did running for 2 hours. If sweating
> can be used as any sort of measure of the effort put in then
> this is definitely a better way for me
to
> train to get my goal. Guess I won't be doing the London
> Marathon this year then!
>
> Jay

[Jasonforst]

"Sam" <marathonman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aifeqv$81k$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> How do you know if you have not lost fat?

Because I wasn't getting any slimmer.

> The comment below that the fuel you use does not matter is
> exactly what
this
> discussion is about.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying. Forget it.

Jay