Losing Weight Vs. Fitness

[old] drkcgoh · Post by **[old] drkcgoh** » June 21st, 2004, 6:07 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (tditmar @ Jun 21 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> "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." While I certainly would not go toe to toe with you on the science behind your opinions, but you seem over and over to be very biased toward your own style of exercise. You way a mere 146lbs, so you are obviously very thin. What about more muscular physiques? Don't people lose a lot of fat weight just by weightlifting alone and limiting their aerobic exercise? And not even by doing a lot of it or spending huge amounts of time, maybe 20-30 min. per session. If someone follows your key to fat loss, they wind up very thin. Don't we become the way we train? What about people who want to be faster sprinters, stronger lifters, and extremely agile? The old books on weightlifting advocate something entirely different for losing fat, and apparently it works as well. Do you disagree with them? How about NFL running backs or Decathletes, or sprinters that many track athletes say train the laziest sessions of all, running no distance workouts, yet have incredibly low body fat?  </td></tr></table> We are born with our own body types, and a "thin" ectomporphic"person can have high body fat while still looking thin when compared to a "fat" looking endomorphic person who has extremely low body fat through weight lifting. While it is true that bodybuilders have low body fat, they don't have a balanced aerobic training, and are not as healthy as those of us who combine strength with endurance as in erging. Among football players, body fat can range from very low to very high depending on the position played. Football defence line 18.4% Football forwards/guards 9.8% Bodybuilders 8.4% Olympic weightlifters 12.2% Marathon runners 3.3% Sprinters 17.4% (quoted from Sports & Exercise Nutrition, Katch & McArdle) I have personally tried out extreme endurance training (running & racewalking for 12 hour sessions & erging a marathon a day for a whole month), weight training 5 times a week & binging on food, while tracking body fat measurement and weight gain. This has also been done on a small group of 70 sedentary people of all ages. So far, weight training with progressive increase in weight load seems to be working to increase body weight, but the higher intensity of aerobic training with higher heart rates has increased the body fat. Appearances can be deceiving, but objective measurement tells the truth. After the next race I shall be going back to low intensity endurance exercise to burn off the body fat again and aim for health instead of a better pb. It is better to look "thin" and stay healthy than to aim for pbs and carry all that heavy muscle around. The mature woman seems to get turned off by it. (it has been whispered to be a common observation) KC62

[old] tditmar · Post by **[old] tditmar** » June 22nd, 2004, 4:59 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (drkcgoh @ Jun 21 2004, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>After the next race I shall be going back to low intensity endurance exercise to burn off the body fat again and aim for health instead of a better pb. It is better to look "thin" and stay healthy than to aim for pbs and carry all that heavy muscle around. The mature woman seems to get turned off by it. (it has been whispered to be a common observation) KC62 </td></tr></table> C'mon, you are definitely biased! And did you really say the mature woman is turned off by muscles? To be clear, I am not talking about grotesque muscular physiques, but rather functional (speed, agility, strength, power) bodies. Have you ever checked out Crossfit.com and looked at their philosophy of exercise? I would really be curious as to your opinion after reading the crossfit journal. In the opening paragraph they dispute calling Mark Allen the fittest man on earth, and go on to compare the feats of decathlete Simon Poelman. They also discuss the 3 metabolic pathways of human action, recognized general fitness skills, and the ability to perform well at all fitness tasks. (The journal is quickly downloaded for free from the website.) <a href='http://www.crossfit.com/cf-download/CFJ-trial.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.crossfit.com/cf-download/CFJ ... br> You make it sound as though endless bouts of low intensity endurance is the key and it just seems to me others are proving you wrong. Or maybe I am not paying close enough attention to what you are saying. Believe me, I recognize you are much more well versed than I regarding human physiology, but it seems biased to me.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 22nd, 2004, 6:51 pm

tditmar, I've not heard of Simon P. What is his time for the Ironman Triathlon?

[old] debs · Post by **[old] debs** » June 22nd, 2004, 7:24 pm

For years I used to hear that low intensity exercise will get you to lose more fat than will high intensity exercise However I've been hearing from numerous sources about intervals increasing metabolism for hours after a work, thus speeding fat reduction. Below are a few articles on this topic from cbass.com. You might go to cbass.com to check out this fella's picture 1. <a href='http://cbass.com/FAQ.HTM#Is%20it%20true' target='_blank'>http://cbass.com/FAQ.HTM#Is%20it%20true</a> - notice - the total fat calories burned during low intensity and high intensity exercise was the same but total calories burned during high intensity exercise was highter 2. <a href='http://cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM' target='_blank'>http://cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM</a> - be sure to read the section WHAT ABOUT FAT LOSS

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 23rd, 2004, 2:03 am

Since the total fat calories burned was the same, then the total fat calories burned was the same. Thus the difference was more glycogen burned at the higher intensity. Also, note the two intensities were still quite low, at 50 and 75%. However, this is interesting as it shows the same number of fat calories can be burned at 50% as at 75% efforts. If the trend holds, then same number of fat carlories would be burned at 50%, as at 100%, again the difference being that more glycogen is used at the higher intensities. The stores of glycogen are one of the limits to prolonged exercise. Thus, the lower the intensity, the *longer* the athlete can train before the glycogen stores are depleted. Also, the fitter the athlete, the higher the intensity that can be maintained while sparing glycogen, resulting in greater utilization of calories from fat. Therefore, the intensity doesn't matter as to the total calories of fat that are utilized. However, the greater the duration, the more fat that is burned. And the fitter the athlete, the greater the amount of fat that is burned at the *same* intensity, compared to those who are less fit. One of the reasons for this is that highly trained endurance athletes have a greater percentage of fat *in* the muscle fibers, where the fat can be more readily used as fuel.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » June 23rd, 2004, 9:44 am

I can understand the importance of burning fat during the exercise, but I'm a little puzzled by the discounting of the non-fat calories burned. If two people burn 500 fat calories and 500 non-fat calories in a session, but then person B burns another 100 non-fat calories, surely that person will lose some more weight? At some point they have to replenish those 100 calories, and assuming they have sufficient protein in their diet it should come either from their diet or from fat deposits - either way it's coming from fat that exists, or would have been laid down. So why isn't this the case? (for John: Simon Poelman probably hasn't done an Ironman, as he's still too busy working on the decathlon (http://www.athletics.org.nz/poelman2.html), though personally I'd prefer Daley Thompson (http://www.decathlon2000.ee/eng/athletes.php?id=62), or in a more limited activity, but with perhaps more relevance here, Sir Steve Redgrave) Cheers, Paul

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 23rd, 2004, 10:18 am

Ok, the thing is, FAT calories come from triglyceride molecules in the body - they are stored in adipose tissue, and in cells. The NON-FAT calories come from other sources - protien, glycogen and other carb molecules. The thing with a faster workout is it encourages your body to burn glycogen stores. This means that a greater PERCENTAGE of calories is coming from glycogen. Thus a long and low workout is more effective percentage wise - out of the total energy burned, more is fat than in a high intensity workout. That said - I have heard of intervals increasing metabolism - but I have never seen anyhting on it. It's all been word of mouth. If someone could find something like that I'd be much appreciative. And Paul - you know the powerbar that you eat right after your workout? that's where those calories come from. However - if I can speculate, I think that that might be why intervals may burn more fat than steady state - they encourage your body to replentish it's energy stores. However I don't know.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » June 23rd, 2004, 10:45 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (eurofoot13 @ Jun 23 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> And Paul - you know the powerbar that you eat right after your workout? that's where those calories come from.  </td></tr></table> I understand that, but if I've had a good workout I'm going to eat that powerbar afterwards whether it was a low or high pace. And if I went slowly the Powerbar isn't needed to replace the extra 100 calories I would have burned, so surely it goes to fat? Or does a slower workout temporarily rewire the body so that it just ignores those extra calories coming in? Cheers, Paul

[old] Cran · Post by **[old] Cran** » June 23rd, 2004, 11:45 am

if you work hard for 1 hour you will burn off more fat than if you work easy for an hour... pretty simple really the % fat may be higher for the easy hour, but the actual fat burned will be higher for the hard hour. Maybe some of the problem is that a lot of people who want to lose weight are fat and unfit, and will burn more fat by working easy for 20 mins than working hard for 2 mins and collapsing I've never had a problem burning fat with 1-2 hours a day of moderate to hard cardio stuff.

[old] debs · Post by **[old] debs** » June 23rd, 2004, 2:33 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (eurofoot13 @ Jun 23 2004, 09:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> That said - I have heard of intervals increasing metabolism - but I have never seen anyhting on it. It's all been word of mouth. If someone could find something like that I'd be much appreciative.  </td></tr></table> In the past year or two I've read numerous studies showing intervals produce much more weight loss per calorie burned than does less intense exercise (up to nine times), and that intervals speed up metabolic rate during rest You can test this yourself with your own heart rate monitor. One day do a moderate workout and watch your heartrate for 3 hours. The next day do intervals and watch your heartrate for 3 hours. You'll see a huge difference. I seem to remember a fella in the old forum did this experiment and posted results. You can do a web search and find many articles on this topic if you have the time. Below is one article on the topic Cheers <a href='http://cbass.com/INTERVAL.HTM' target='_blank'>http://cbass.com/INTERVAL.HTM</a>

Concept2 Forum

Losing Weight Vs. Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness