45minute At An Average 175bpm: Fat Burning Or Not?

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » January 13th, 2006, 1:25 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(stuartg @ Jan 11 2006, 05:08 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 19 2005, 10:16 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Steelhead @ Dec 18 2005, 06:08 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That's not the point. The point is that recreational athletes can't sustain high-intensity exercise for more than 10 to 15 minutes without accumulating high concentrations of lactic acid -- of course, world class athletes can accumulate high concentrations, but the article refers to recreational athletes such as most of us using an erg.[right] </td></tr></table> The author of the article is clueless. As I said the article is not worth reading, and certainly not worth pasting onto a message board. </td></tr></table> I think you are the clueless one you fool. This guy has a PhD works at a well known Australian university in the area of exercise physiology and you think you know better. He has published in this area (see attachment) and still you think you know better. You are an ignorant fool. You refuse to listen to reason and logic and lack any insight in this area. What qualifications do you have you fool? Stick your head back and piss off from this section. You are not welcome you fool. I have attached further reading for you to familiarise yourself with this topic you fool </td></tr></table> Well said. Thanks for the excellent attachments. Very informative and add much to this thread.

[old] Jumpsoda · Post by **[old] Jumpsoda** » January 21st, 2006, 3:48 am

Went to medical school..., cruds.... we spent one year on JUST carbohydrate metabolism alone...ugh. Really, you want to try and make it simple and easy to understand so the average Joe can make heads or tails out of it and use it to tailor his or her own exercise regime depending on what they are trying to achieve. Muscle has three seperate biochemical tricks - energy sources - for rebuilding ATP, depending on the intensity of the exercise. 1. The aerobic system - Makes lots of ATP slowly - Burns fat and sugar to make ATP - Is oxygen dependent - Gives (almost) endless energy 2. The lactate system - Makes less ATP but does it fast - Burns only sugar to make ATP - Reqires no oxyygen - Yields up to seven minutes (about) of energy 3. The creatine-phosphate system - Makes small amounts of ATP super, super fast - ATP comes from stored ATP and creatine - P inside muscle - Does not need oxygen, fat, or sugar to function - Lasts (about) ten seconds You can divide sports activities into three levels and train specifically for any one.....it all depends on what your goals are. (My English is not the best, hope this is okay)

[old] jd187144 · Post by **[old] jd187144** » January 29th, 2006, 2:48 pm

Volume is the key! But its to remember that you are training at high levels and need to avoid overstressing the body. As a lightweight for 8 years I've found that having 4 supplemental rows a week at low intensity (130-150 bpm) for 45-60' will help keep the weight off. These afternoon workouts are light enough that the next day's main work won't be hindered, but its also extra meters put in. Plus, you will also benefit from an increase in aerobic training. I know I don't have an extensive knowledge in the body's physiology, so comments are also welcomed with an open mind.

[old] GasHouse60 · Post by **[old] GasHouse60** » February 2nd, 2006, 1:54 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(sbasol @ Dec 15 2005, 02:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I usually row for 45 minutes at an average heart rtae of 170-175 bpm. I wonder if it is fat burning or not? They say we should row at a low intensty ın order to burn fat. But when I row at a low pace I burn less calorıes than I would rowıng at a faster pace. If you help I would be very pleased. </td></tr></table> All of the opinions seem to be opinions so I'll offer mine. I rather like the articles about higher volumetric activity and the biochemical metabolism. But take the athletics and the caloric measures out of it. Calories, as we all know, is a measure of energy in thermodynamics. It's a standard and not all bodies will burn the same amount of "calories" in the same activity, albeit they will be close. It is very much the body's fingerprint. The body/brain is trying to constantly measure the body's fat contentedness. So if you increase your activity the brain, in a man, thinks you're going on a hunt...to hunt game/to forage for food. Our bodies turn glycogen into glucose and then into fat reserves. What great fuel doesn't get burned off as glycogen, gets disposed of (if it's really not good) or translated into glucose. What good fuel isn't used from glucose gets disposed of in waste (if it's particularly nasty) or turned into fat reserves. Fat reserves aren't just fats but fats in differing forms as suspended agent. The suspension is going to be some form of water/salt and the agent is the final form of "cellulose" which is a term to defined what fat looks like, not what it really contains. So just like we train our neuro-muscular system to endure an activity. We also must train our fuel providers to distribute the stored fats. The more often we get into this "fat burning" system the more we condition the brain to adjust to allocating the proper fuel for what it preceives to be an activity. We're so consumed as rowers/coaches to get to lactic burn that we spend very little time conditioning our brains and our athletes brains to supply fuels through lipolysis. What we do do in this activity so we "must win at all costs" is that we simply tell the brain we're going to be busy for a total of about 25 minutes when we go to a regatta. "25 minutes?" the brain says "Dude, I got MORE than enough." And most of our bodies do have more than enough in the form of fat. Our nomenclature for supplying fuel is negative and wrong-brained. It's called burning calories, for instance. The body doesn't burn anything...it is converting fat supplies to glucose (and remember from our thesis that first: the best fuel is used, next the next best fuel is then skimmed off the remainder, then lastly that fuel that didn't qualify as waste prior to being stored is asked to be converted back into glucose). That's what you're converting to fuel. How do you think you'd react to erging in a room that housed animals with no ventilation and very little light? You could do it but you'd turn in a very mediocre performance. That's is what you are asking the muscle to use as fuel when you're "burning fat". It isn't about "burning fat", it's more like turning diesel into regular unleaded and believing the whole time you're burning premium unleaded. It ain't happening, meaning you aren't burning the high quality fuel "simply because" it's now glycogen. It's glycogen that wasn't chosen the first or second time. It's the nerd fat so to speak. Most of our research for physical activity has been acquired through University and Governmental programs researching quality of activity for premiere athletes or high stress activity say for astronauts. Much of our current belief/exercise jargon still comes from the early years from the middle of the last century. Most all of the contributors here seem to point out...volume is more important than intensity for weight loss and control. But also remember what you put in your mouth is more key than what physical activity you engaged in that day. Working with a number of over-weight women over the past few years I've found that reducing the volume of food, increasing the quality of the food, increasing the quality of fluids and moderating the amounts (if your frequency to the restroom is greater than the number of drinks you have in a day, your body is telling you you're drinking too much). Also, increasing the length of their moderate activity from 30 minutes to over 50 minutes (exclusive of a stretch warm-up) helps to achieve a steady weight loss of between 1-2 pounds a week. When this activity is started the brain will react and attempt to store back MORE energy and it causes the "plateau" that people talk about. Working through this flat spot is where many people give up. Because initially as we know the body is giving up the suspension (as sweat) THEN giving up fat...glycogen, glucose, fat stores...remember this. So this is where the "water weight" phenomenon comes from. We must condition our energy system to tap the fat stores as often as we can, if we want to achieve sustainable, significant weight loss. If we're doing anaearobic thresholds/lactic tolerance and some weight training...you're conditioning muscle to use glucose but this activity never touches the fat stores in most normal people. I've found this to be example to be true...for most untrained weight conscious people there is a "dread" that sets in around 28-38 minutes into a moderate intensity activity. Not being able to base any of it on published figures or physiological research...my supposition is that the body, for these folks, is moving into acquiring fat stores for conversion back into glucose, then back into glycogen. The duration of this phase takes about 5-8 minutes for most and also the person feels the urge to stop working out....now we are not talking about intense physical exertion but it is exertion (all the while watching heartrate and respiration rate). At about 39 minutes for most everyone I've watched, measured and consulted with, they feel a reinvigoration and can extend their activity comfortably for another 20 minutes or so. I firmly believe and, it's all only my personal research with others, that the brain is resisting the body's request to turn fat into glucose. The brain does this because it thinks that fuel is "penny saved is a penny earned." Meaning the brain is a natural fat miser and "takes" ALL day long but "gives back" very grudgingly. My workouts based on these, the data I got from coaching in college and data I've acquired from coaching Masters rowers is that a constant, moderate intensity activity in length over 45 minutes w/ HR around 140 (considering physical conditioning) will result in 1-2 lb weight loss starting in the second week of this activity. It's a very Socratian thing...moderation in everything! Moderate the volume and quality of eating, moderate the intensity of the workout and teach the body to tap the fat stores. Normal people can only do this in the length of activity I've described above. If you lower the activity intensity, to say fast paced walking, you must lengthen the duration. But understand I firmly believe and can readily show that the body will not tap the fat stores until the brain senses a low concentration of glucose around the muscles. So working out for 20 -30 minutes is a prime candidate for gaining weight because, really, all you're doing is ridding the body of suspension, waste and high quality fuels. Leaving the leftovers to be stored away. This applies to NORMAL people not conditioned athletes drinking Gatorade in controlled groupings. For Michelle and Sebastian in the real world they need provable, repeatable data and our current physiological community is not meeting their needs. This is because they aren't a group "at-risk" nor are they in a group ready to get an adverstising endorsement. So very little interest for this group exists because we lump them into the averages. That's why we have so many people who are trying to lose weight give up because we have NO paradigm for them to follow. It's time to look into this question for the "everyday people" and stop applying control data from high quality athletes and "at-risk" groups to the guy and gal going to work after a good morning workout. It isn't working and we need to find what does work. Then put it into a language that doesn't require a year of college level studies to understand.

[old] Alissa · Post by **[old] Alissa** » February 2nd, 2006, 11:18 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(GasHouse60 @ Feb 1 2006, 09:54 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I've found this to be example to be true...for most untrained weight conscious people there is a "dread" that sets in around 28-38 minutes into a moderate intensity activity. Not being able to base any of it on published figures or physiological research...my supposition is that the body, for these folks, is moving into acquiring fat stores for conversion back into glucose, then back into glycogen. The duration of this phase takes about 5-8 minutes for most and also the person feels the urge to stop working out....now we are not talking about intense physical exertion but it is exertion (all the while watching heartrate and respiration rate). At about 39 minutes for most everyone I've watched, measured and consulted with, they feel a reinvigoration and can extend their activity comfortably for another 20 minutes or so. I firmly believe and, it's all only my personal research with others, that the brain is resisting the body's request to turn fat into glucose. The brain does this because it thinks that fuel is "penny saved is a penny earned." Meaning the brain is a natural fat miser and "takes" ALL day long but "gives back" very grudgingly. My workouts based on these, the data I got from coaching in college and data I've acquired from coaching Masters rowers is that a constant, moderate intensity activity in length over 45 minutes w/ HR around 140 (considering physical conditioning) will result in 1-2 lb weight loss starting in the second week of this activity. It's a very Socratian thing...moderation in everything! Moderate the volume and quality of eating, moderate the intensity of the workout and teach the body to tap the fat stores. Normal people can only do this in the length of activity I've described above. If you lower the activity intensity, to say fast paced walking, you must lengthen the duration. But understand I firmly believe and can readily show that the body will not tap the fat stores until the brain senses a low concentration of glucose around the muscles. So working out for 20 -30 minutes is a prime candidate for gaining weight because, really, all you're doing is ridding the body of suspension, waste and high quality fuels. Leaving the leftovers to be stored away. [SNIP] This applies to NORMAL people[...]and our current physiological community is not meeting their needs. This is because they aren't a group "at-risk" nor are they in a group ready to get an adverstising endorsement. So very little interest for this group exists because we lump them into the averages. That's why we have so many people who are trying to lose weight give up because we have NO paradigm for them to follow.[right] </td></tr></table>(Emphasis added.) What a very interesting discussion! Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed post. I've highlighed some of the things that were particularly surprising to me. This is very different from those who say, yes, long & slow is good, because you can continue longer (in order to "burn the desired calories"), but the same effect (# of calories burned) can be had from going harder, faster. If I read you right, you disagree profoundly with approaches based solely on the # of calories burned. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "HR around 140 (considering physical conditioning)"? When would 140 be right? when lower? when higher...and what would be the determining considerations? Since I have no expertise here, I'd be interested in seing the reactions of other knowledgeable people to your post as well. Thank you again. Alissa

[old] Steelhead · Post by **[old] Steelhead** » February 2nd, 2006, 8:29 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Alissa @ Feb 2 2006, 08:18 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What a very interesting discussion! Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed post. I've highlighed some of the things that were particularly surprising to me. This is very different from those who say, yes, long & slow is good, because you can continue longer (in order to "burn the desired calories"), but the same effect (# of calories burned) can be had from going harder, faster. If I read you right, you disagree profoundly with approaches based solely on the # of calories burned. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "HR around 140 (considering physical conditioning)"? When would 140 be right? when lower? when higher...and what would be the determining considerations? Since I have no expertise here, I'd be interested in seing the reactions of other knowledgeable people to your post as well. Thank you again. Alissa </td></tr></table> Everytime I have lost weight in terms of pounds and inches and an increase in muscle mass (except for one time), I have done the following: weight trained three times a week, and jogged 30 minutes 6 days a week. Within 3 months of doing this, i would be in top physical condition with little body fat. The only time I did something different and went from 200 pounds to 155 pounds in about 4 months time was when I rode my bicycle 25 miles six mornings a week before work without any weight lifting. Of course, each time I would limit my caloric intake to about 1600 calories per day. At the beginning of last year (2005), being out of shape, I decided to erg only. I started at 10,000 metres a day and built up to about 30,000 metres per day five days a week; on some days I would row a FM and I think the most metres I rowed in one day was about 70,000. I did long moderate rows, and lost about 15 pounds; needless to say I wasn't happy about this. Unfortunately, I was not monitoring my caloric intake. In November, I joined WW and within two weeks dropped 10 of the 15 pounds I had lost. So I think the key is to simply burn more calories from any type of physical activity (normal activities plus rowing for example) than you consume each day. This will result in an increase in metabolism and a loss of inches and pounds. Mike

[old] GasHouse60 · Post by **[old] GasHouse60** » February 4th, 2006, 2:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Alissa @ Feb 2 2006, 10:18 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> What a very interesting discussion! Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed post. I've highlighed some of the things that were particularly surprising to me. This is very different from those who say, yes, long & slow is good, because you can continue longer (in order to "burn the desired calories"), but the same effect (# of calories burned) can be had from going harder, faster. If I read you right, you disagree profoundly with approaches based solely on the # of calories burned. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "HR around 140 (considering physical conditioning)"? When would 140 be right? when lower? when higher...and what would be the determining considerations? Since I have no expertise here, I'd be interested in seing the reactions of other knowledgeable people to your post as well. Thank you again. Alissa </td></tr></table> Alissa, You want me to expound. Understand these are data that I've found working with persons who didn't participate in physical activity for the first portions of their adult lives, read 20s and early 30s. HR around 140...140 is a stairstep that I like to see, the persons I work with, that gives me an indication of the physical stamina. I've seen one wither trying to hold 140 and had to settle at 132, while another was very comfortable with a heartrate of 142-148. So as a target I use 140, not every one can sustain this and it should be a preceived effort measure. ------- Not meaning to be argumentative but I believe the mindset of burning calories should be examined to see if another set of terms and layperson's language can be applied to weight loss/control. The question that drew me here was our thread originator's "...am I burning fat." Well, again one doesn't burn fat...through lipolysis it's "re-absorbed" into the energy system. Fat burning is a term that invokes negativity and dread in normal persons. If you're burning something it must hurt, right? By 1250 in any race I'm completely lactated over...does a regular Sue know the difference between this lactic burn and the activity it takes to "burn fat". I suggest to you they don't. Because most people will mildy cringe when I use those terms, consistent with burning. Anyone's license is to disagree with me. That's okay...I've been developing my ideas with non-rowing types and when I come back to the rower mindset I find folks using 30 year old terms that didn't help 30 years ago and aren't helping today. That is my point. While I've been watching this develop I've had to throw away my own dogmatic views that had no basis in fact but only in prejudice. --------------- Call the activity what you like, people do not understand what the body does to acquire weight (and why), nor do they understand the reverse. It was anecdotal data in one of the popular research, that rowers/coaches like to quote, that if the body is not given the sufficient amount of time to adjust to the activity the body will use whatever fuel it can find. In many cases with the athelete the brain/body will use important parts of the neuro-muscular system to feed itself. I did hear one person refer to it as canabalizing, however only one. This is why I believe long, low slow up to this 40 minute threshold gives the body the correct signals from with which to determine where it should properly "re-absorbing" the fat stores. Prior to this point the body is only feeding on glucose/water/salt reserves and hasn't switched over to lipolysis. --------------- While I'm no expert at biochemstry either...there are plenty of resources to refer to what I am speaking about. Quickly, there is a Wiki on Fatty Acid Metabolism that one can read paying attention to the Degradation portion of the Wiki. You'll see reference to the current popular ilk about carbs and ketosis...that aside pay attention to what the Wiki page outlines that must be taking place for these things to happen. From there and going to a Glycogen Wiki one can run rampant in academic/clinical overstimulation. Also one can glance to the same for glycolysis. While most exercise physiologians can recite the processes that glycogen, glucose and fatty acids fulfill in the body. There is not a preponderance of data showing when your body or my body starts to engage in lipolysis (hydrolysis by lipases). While there are other processes involved it can be said that our body's energy reserves reside in three places glycogen, glucose and triglycerides. And our Grail is: when does all this take place? My statement to the thread's originator is that he actually is dealing in anaerobic glycosis and this is part of the fight or flight system. Extended periods of exercise spent in this system has been documented to show a reduction in muscle cell size/mass. I don't disagree with the # of calories burned synopsis. I disagree that this can not be used as a guide for persons in the norm. I include myself in that group. While I had delusions to the National team...it was that a "delusion". I'm another guy rowing in another club lost in the back water of rowing. However, this describes a huge portion of athlete/competitor in our sport suffering with weight control. ------------------ Persons in the norm carry higher volumes of fat than the prepared athlete. Persons in the norm do not have a regular, sustainable set of goals that arrive at an end. Persons in the norm have difficulty controlling their weight and their appetite. While the typical athelete might suffer from these same sorts of malady, I contend that they are who they are because they aren't normal. We've got years and years of training table data for many collegiate/professional athelete. Have we had the same emphasis/insight for Frank/Fran who run 15-30 minutes in the morning and fight the rest of the day struggling on what they can and can't eat? Well, once again I'm going long. I would suggest to the thread's originator that he is causing damage to the muscle fiber he is using during his extended rowing activity (considering the higher HR) and that if he'd like to "burn off a little of the flab" that he lower his target HR (as it looks that he can sustain it) by about 20, let the body adjust for 2 weeks and then start measuring. Also, that after a check-up with a trusted doctor he keep himself well hydrating and watch eating foods/liguids that aren't readily absorbed by the body. If he continues with his current schedule for any extended length of time he will probably see a reduction in his performance. But that's a rowing nutrition issue that is better addressed elsewhere. My apologies if I'm getting long-written. Thanks for your time. Oh, BTW I think Steelhead's personal anecdotes are right on. But it's a fingerprint unique to himself, and as he suggests, is a guideline.

Concept2 Forum

45minute At An Average 175bpm: Fat Burning Or Not?

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control