How Do I Burn Fat Most Efficiently?

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » July 10th, 2004, 3:15 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (DIESEL @ Jul 10 2004, 02:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 220 at 12% b.f. or 220 at 6% b.f. All other variables being equal - the oarsman with the lower body fat percentage will perform better than the one with the higher bodyfat. Why? he will have more of an advantage vis-a-vis oxygen consumption and theoretically he would have a slightly higher VO2 Max = he would therefore be able to hold lower splits/higher ratings a bit longer than his fatter counterpart.. Also the higher proportion of lean mass would indicate that the leaner oarsman would probably be a bit stronger too, thus capable of producing more watts/stroke. Which over the 2K distance becomes a huge advantage. I hope that clarifies what I was getting at a bit more.  </td></tr></table> A few points on your post: 1) If everything else is equal apart from bodyfat percentage between the two guys, then surely that means VO2 max is equal? If absolute VO2max is equal (l/min), then the rower with the higher body fat will actually have the higher "per kg" VO2 max compared to his lean weight (ml/kg/min). 2) As far as I'm aware, fat doesn't have oxygen supplied to it? Maybe I'm wrong on that, I'm not sure. But if not, then the rower with the higher body fat, who has less lean mass, is actually better off on oxygen consumption as there is less muscle mass for the oxygenated blood to be pumped around. 3) The rower with less body fat will have more lean mass, and so, all other things being equal, will be stronger, and so probably faster on the erg, I agree. Isn't 6% bodyfat a good bit below recommended levels? I think I'd rather be the 220 pound, 12% body fat rower myself. Ok everything else being equal the guy with 6% bodyfat would be faster on the erg, but only if he can stay injury and illness free. All I'm trying to get at is that there is a reason we have fat on our bodies I think (and not just to keep us warm in our caves at night). Some amount of body fat will protect joints and that sort of thing. When I was younger and played a lot of rugby I don't think it's any coincidence that the people will the lowest body fat were the ones always getting injuries (knees etc). We're probably crossing over two issues on this tread - the best training to do for losing body fat (and not lean mass), and the best training to do (+ weight training) for being the fastest you can be on the ergo. In the time I've been erging, through erging alone I have lost a fair bit of bodyfat, and increased my lean mass a lot all over my body. My CV fitness is also the best it has ever been in my life (I've always taken part in a lot of sports). Pete

[old] DIESEL · Post by **[old] DIESEL** » July 11th, 2004, 2:47 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 1) If everything else is equal apart from bodyfat percentage between the two guys, then surely that means VO2 max is equal? If absolute VO2max is equal (l/min), then the rower with the higher body fat will actually have the higher "per kg" VO2 max compared to his lean weight (ml/kg/min).  </td></tr></table> Um.. no. I didn't explain myself well. Being fat is never an advantage when it comes to cardiovascular exercise. The leaner you are the better the body processes oxygen. Even if what you said is true, the man at 12%'s VO2 Max would decrease if he were to go on a diet and lean out to 6% b.f. ? So then you would say that the fatter you are the higher per kg VO2 Max? That makes no sense. If not all endurance athletes would put a premium on being fat. Somehow, under your rubric the extra weight they are carrying would cancel out any supposed increase in VO2 Max. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 2) As far as I'm aware, fat doesn't have oxygen supplied to it? Maybe I'm wrong on that, I'm not sure. But if not, then the rower with the higher body fat, who has less lean mass, is actually better off on oxygen consumption as there is less muscle mass for the oxygenated blood to be pumped around.  </td></tr></table> No. Fat is never an advantage for endurance. It only messes with your capacity to go at a high rate for long periods of time and is nothing but dead weight. Lean mass is anything but that, unless of course you go overboard and get too big! 3) The rower with less body fat will have more lean mass, and so, all other things being equal, will be stronger, and so probably faster on the erg, I agree. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Isn't 6% bodyfat a good bit below recommended levels?  </td></tr></table> No. It's right where a world-class endurance athlete should be. Don't believe me? Take a look at elite endurance athletes like XC skiers, Tour de France racers, Olympic swimmers, triathletes and even Olympic-level oarsmen. Most, if not all, are in the single digits for body fat. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I think I'd rather be the 220 pound, 12% body fat rower myself. </td></tr></table> That's too fat. You're sacrificing speed. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Ok everything else being equal the guy with 6% bodyfat would be faster on the erg, but only if he can stay injury and illness free. </td></tr></table> Wouldn't the same be true for the fatter guy? <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> All I'm trying to get at is that there is a reason we have fat on our bodies I think (and not just to keep us warm in our caves at night). Some amount of body fat will protect joints and that sort of thing. </td></tr></table> Absolutely not true. Do you have fat around your knee joint? Elbow? Mine are pretty bony. Fat is simply the byproduct of eating more food than your body needs. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> When I was younger and played a lot of rugby I don't think it's any coincidence that the people will the lowest body fat were the ones always getting injuries (knees etc). </td></tr></table> it sounds purely coincidental, and probably has nothing to do with "padded" joints. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> We're probably crossing over two issues on this tread - the best training to do for losing body fat (and not lean mass), and the best training to do (+ weight training) for being the fastest you can be on the ergo. </td></tr></table> yes precisely. If you have to drop some weight to get faster on the erg, then you have to do what I outlined. Once you get to your target weight, then you can focus exclusively on the erg. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> In the time I've been erging, through erging alone I have lost a fair bit of bodyfat, and increased my lean mass a lot all over my body. My CV fitness is also the best it has ever been in my life (I've always taken part in a lot of sports). </td></tr></table> Rowing and XC skiing in my opinion are the best CV exercises there are. It's not surprising to hear your testimonial about muscle increases - it's a normal adaptation to the stresses of the rowing stroke.

[old] debs · Post by **[old] debs** » July 11th, 2004, 11:37 am

I would definitely expect significant muscle increases from high intensity rowing - from sprints etc. I'd not expect significant muscle increase from only slow, low intensity rowing. I was recently looking at pictures of the top world marathoners - male and female. They are incredibly thin with very thin muscle from head to toe. These folks focus on slow, low intensity exercise which does not give them major muscle mass.

[old] Karl1234 · Post by **[old] Karl1234** » July 11th, 2004, 4:35 pm

Just to add in my own anecdotal observation. I'm now starting to row for the second time. The first time was after a lot of weight lifting in prerationfor a rugby comeback, the second is kind of getting back into consistant training. The first time I observed my legs getting bigger, even though I was at my heaviest ever and could squat some big weight. I was rowing on a team and not doing tons of short erg pieces. Even though my upper boddy bulk left pretty quickly after I stopped the lifting, the legs actually got bigger, or at least they looked bigger. This time, well it's only 4 weeks in, but I think that the legs are putting on mass. I have been rowing almost exclusively peices in excess of 45 minutes, all with low spm and high (for me) SPI. So stuff like 20spm, 22 spm at 200, 220 w. Just a comment in reply to debs. I've not touched a barbell, and do only long peices. I'm not looking much like a marathoner, I mean the body seems (after a month) to be at least putting on mass on the legs, and I feel not losing anything anywhere else. No theory, just what I'm seeing/have seen in my case. I did measure my body before I started training again, but it's too early - I want to wait longer before I check for changes. (24 yr M)

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » July 11th, 2004, 5:34 pm

correct, long, slow runs/rows/etc. do not build muscle mass, however, they DO burn fat. in fact if it is slow enough, and long enough, it will burn one whole heck of a lot of fat. the thing is, that fat burning actually INCREASES fat absorbtion. If you can, look at pictures of Eddy Merckx, the famous cyclist. Find one when he was young and fit, and find one now. at least some of that weight is due to fat consumption. the easiest way to put it is you body stores more fat because it is "afraid" of running out. when you do long term endurance exercise, you burn what you take in, so you stay slender. The key is to make sure that fat+carb calories in are less than fat calories out. this is why a high protien diet can contribute to weight loss. however, be careful of red meats - they are very high in fats. I have heard that for fat oxidation to be at it's best, intervals need to be used. I haven't read any literature on this yet, but if someone knows of any, I want to read some. secondly, 6% body fat is not that low. I believe I am hovering around 5-7%. I could probably take off 1-2% more and be fine. but that is about the maximum. because fat DOES protect tissues and organs. there will always be about 2-4% of our body mass that we cannot take off. it is integral fat - the stuff that our body needs to survive. the stuff that most people call fat, subcutaneous fat, is just muscle fuel. Before I started training competitively though, I was only at about 10% body fat. so, you can be perfectly healthy with a very low %BF. about the lean muscle mass thing, they are both the same weight, and assuming that both can lift the same amount in all exercises, then they would be equal if they had the same VO2max. rowing is a big physics equation. it's all about how much force yo ucan put on the handle. F=MV now if they can both put the same velocity into the handle (strength) then the mass portion takes over.

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » July 11th, 2004, 7:44 pm

Below is Dr. Goh's post from mid-June. It offers some usual information regarding the difference between using high-intensity and low-intensity workouts for weight loss. Tom Rawls xercise Intensity is the guiding principle in weight loss. When you exercise at a high intensity, the body switches to using carbohydrates as the source of energy, and your fat stores remain little used. You may feel utterly exhausted, and may even lose a lot of weight initially through fluid loss, but in the long run, the body fat stays high, and the average weight stays high. There are some arguments that the total amount of calories you burn when exercising at high intensities is much higher than when you exercise at low intensities, but look at all those highly competitive exercisers who still cannot manage to lose weight. It is not just a question of calculating calories burnt during exercise. We are trying to teach the body to use fat as the main source of fuel, and competitive marathon runners have been successful in doing so. To them a sub 5 minute mile is still in the fat burning zone, whereas to the recreational runner, even an 8 minute mile is in the carbohydrate burning zone. Some research has been done and published in the MSSE, the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine to determine the optimal intensity during exercise to lose weight, and they have come out with the figure of 74% of VO2max. This is not equivalent to 74% of Maximum Heart Rate. You need Karvonenn's formula to calculate it. 220-age to predict maximumheart rate gives just a low estimate. Compounded with the straight percentage of this figure reached, you get an unrealistically low heart rate to aim at. The Heart Rate monitors are good to get an idea of the pace you need to keep it slow, and in the fat burning zone. I keep it high to gain weight, and low to lose weight when I want to. So the key to sustained weight control is slow (use your imagination to keep it interesting) long duration exercise + sensible eating. No fad diets, no supplements needed. KC62/5'10'/146 lbs/Body fat 16.1% byDEXA

Concept2 Forum

How Do I Burn Fat Most Efficiently?

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training