How To Burn Fat?

[[old] tditmar]

I am starting to wonder which is true?<br /><br />I am noticing the various men's health and fitness magazines, that they are now shifting there focus for burning fat and getting in shape on short, intense exercise vs aerobic exercise. In fact I just received a long advertisement to subscribe to one of these magazines that had a bunch of teasers in it and one of them was "is running for 30 minutes a good way to exercise," and answered it with "yeah, if you are a girl," because that type of exercise for men causes them to lose muscle needed to stay lean, and then went on to explain if you are a man you need short intense exercise geared toward building muscle to get rid of fat, especially visceral fat.<br /><br />I like crossfit, and have really been buying into a lot of that, but then I read that Men's Journal article being posted in this forum regarding endurance and training the heart muscle, plus very interesting reading from Dr Seiler who really seems to know his stuff and I get confused. Especially with some stuff I read of Dr Seiler's last night where it seems like he is saying for the endurance athlete or even for general fitness, long (60-90 minute) low intensity bouts of whatever you like, say rowing which he was using as the examples, mixed in with intermittent bouts of high intensity intervals or exercise, but sparingly. Now, he is really talking about getting the heart muscle in shape, not really about burning fat, but I would imagine it goes hand in hand in some way, shape, or form. <br /><br />Xeno's March newsletter has a headline "Rowing is the best exercise to burn fat." I am very curious how and why he feels that is the case from a physiological standpoint, and if in fact it is true. For me, I have always seemed to drop weight the easiest from running, but now that I can only erg for a while I am testing that. And then what about body weight vs iron exercises for resistance, or vs the erg for that matter?<br /><br />If anyone can make heads or tails of the issues I raise, I would love to hear some responses.

[[old] jamesg]

Keep it simple:<br /><br />Exercise is for getting fit<br />Eating is for getting fat.

[[old] tditmar]

<!--QuoteBegin-jamesg+May 6 2005, 02:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jamesg @ May 6 2005, 02:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep it simple:<br /><br />Exercise is for getting fit<br />Eating is for getting fat. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I think one could argue that eating is also for getting fit. You might be keeping it a bit too simple. Plus, many people exercise and still do not become fit.<br /><br />Still, I am with you. It just doesn't answer my questions.

[[old] michaelb]

There have been several long, interesting, threads in this forum on this issue. There is not a consensus answer or agreement. I do think, based on my own experience, reports of others here, but not any science, that rowing is "less good" for losing weight, because it can also lead to increased muscle mass in the body core. But I think most of us will happily take that trade off (unless you are an elite runner and don't want to carry extra core muscles).<br /><br />One thing we haven't discussed though is that I think health magazines have an interest in promoting the newest and latest theories, regardless of the science behind them. So that makes me skeptical about any of these new claims, at least until they stand the test of time of say 10-20 years.<br /><br />We know that burning more calories than you consume will lead to weight loss. Maybe, sometimes, burning calories doing intense intervals will lead to greater weightloss than easy steady state workouts, but intense intervals are also harder, so the average person may be less likely to stick with them for the long term.

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Perhaps you need to frame the question more precisely. <br /><br />Insofar as I know, physiology says this: If you want to burn a high proportion of body fat while exercising, exercise at a low to moderate intensity for a relatively long time. Shorter more intense exercise will burn a higher proportion of stored carbohydrate.<br /><br />If you want to lose weight, there are an increasing number of proponents of the-shorter-more-intense approach, which results in elevated metabolism post-exercise.<br /><br />Of course, if you are "training" almost every day, exercising intensely may lead to over-training. <br /><br />So it has always seemed to me that if your goal is to lose weight (and be lean), the kind of training required for a middle distance athlete--like someone who rows a 2k--offers a good mix of longer "fat-burning" rows and shorter "metabolism-raising" intervals.<br /><br />But, alas, you can't defy the laws of the universe: Neither approach works if you take in more calories than you burn off.<br /><br />Tom<br />

[[old] tditmar]

<!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+May 6 2005, 08:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ May 6 2005, 08:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you need to frame the question more precisely. <br /><br />Insofar as I know, physiology says this: If you want to burn a high proportion of body fat while exercising, exercise at a low to moderate intensity for a relatively long time. Shorter more intense exercise will burn a higher proportion of stored carbohydrate.<br /><br />If you want to lose weight, there are an increasing number of proponents of the-shorter-more-intense approach, which results in elevated metabolism post-exercise.<br /><br />Of course, if you are "training" almost every day, exercising intensely may lead to over-training. <br /><br />So it has always seemed to me that if your goal is to lose weight (and be lean), the kind of training required for a middle distance athlete--like someone who rows a 2k--offers a good mix of longer "fat-burning" rows and shorter "metabolism-raising" intervals.<br /><br />But, alas, you can't defy the laws of the universe: Neither approach works if you take in more calories than you burn off.<br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br />At least there are people like you who understand a question not asked so precisely. Now, your response leads me to a couple more questions.<br /><br />When you say exercising intensely may lead to over-training, does that consider that it is a shorter bout of exercise? Does that matter?<br /><br />Also, I wonder, would you consider a 400 meter runner the track equivalent of a 2k rower? (not that I am a 400 meter runner, but I find that the most interesting event in track and field. A hybrid of aerobic and anaerobic.)<br /><br />I also wonder if body type is important? I have a feeling it is.<br /><br />Thanks for you response.

[[old] TomR/the elder]

td<br /><br />First, a disclaimer. I'm no expert. I've simply read a bit.<br /><br />Now, let me try a couple of answers. <br /><br />I tend to think of a 2k on the erg as roughly the equivalent of a 3,000 meter foot race. Both take something on the order 6-7 minutes. A 400 meter race lasts a minute--if you're slow. The 2k is approx 75% aerobic.<br /><br />If your training is primarily short, intense workouts, isn't that the sort of training one does when peaking during the racing season? I don't believe that kind of peak can be sustained. In addition, I have read that intense, race-pace workouts depress the immune system, leaving your body vulnerable for some time afterwards. So unless you are a serious competitor in race season, I think general health would be best served by a mix of workouts and appropriate rest. (You might also Google "periodization," which is a training regime that uses, say, 3 weeks of increasingly demanding workouts, followed by a week of considerably reduced training.)<br /><br />As for body type: the reading I've done says that world class oarsman have an uncommonly high proportion of slow-twitch fibers. A 2k is an endurance race, not a sprint. Also remember that long workouts of low to moderate intensity train the body to develop slow-twitch fibers.<br /><br />If you want what I understand to be reliable information about all this, check out this site:<br /><br /><a href='http://home.hia.no/%7Estephens/exphys.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/%7Estephens/exphys.htm</a><br /><br />Tom<br /><br />

[[old] tditmar]

<!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+May 6 2005, 09:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ May 6 2005, 09:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->td<br /><br />First, a disclaimer. I'm no expert. I've simply read a bit.<br /><br />Now, let me try a couple of answers. <br /><br />I tend to think of a 2k on the erg as roughly the equivalent of a 3,000 meter foot race. Both take something on the order 6-7 minutes. A 400 meter race lasts a minute--if you're slow. The 2k is approx 75% aerobic.<br /><br />If your training is primarily short, intense workouts, isn't that the sort of training one does when peaking during the racing season? I don't believe that kind of peak can be sustained. In addition, I have read that intense, race-pace workouts depress the immune system, leaving your body vulnerable for some time afterwards. So unless you are a serious competitor in race season, I think general health would be best served by a mix of workouts and appropriate rest. (You might also Google "periodization," which is a training regime that uses, say, 3 weeks of increasingly demanding workouts, followed by a week of considerably reduced training.)<br /><br />As for body type: the reading I've done says that world class oarsman have an uncommonly high proportion of slow-twitch fibers. A 2k is an endurance race, not a sprint. Also remember that long workouts of low to moderate intensity train the body to develop slow-twitch fibers.<br /><br />If you want what I understand to be reliable information about all this, check out this site:<br /><br /><a href='http://home.hia.no/%7Estephens/exphys.htm' target='_blank'>http://home.hia.no/%7Estephens/exphys.htm</a><br /><br />Tom <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Funny you should mention the site, I read quite a bit of it last night.<br /><br />Okay, so say I was born with primarily fast-twitch fibers, whcih I suspect is the case. Should that mean that is how I should primarily train. In other words, train for my muscle type? Seiler says "If you want to win an Olympic medal in the 100 meter dash, you had better be born with about 80% fast twitch fibers! Want to win the Olympic marathon? Put in an order for 80% slow twitch fibers in your quads." i don't see the answer to that anywhere. And, no evidence suggests fiber types change with training anyway, "So, remember, there is no compelling evidence to show that human skeletal muscle switches fiber types from "fast" to "slow" due to training."<br /><br />Also, he seems to minimize the importance of fiber type in the end "Second, even among a group of elite endurance athletes, fiber type alone is a poor predictor of performance. This is especially true in the intermediate duration events. There are many other factors that go in to determining success! In fact, there is also evidence to suggest that a mixed fiber composition is ideal for success in an event like the mile run, or if good performances are to be possible in a range of events."<br /><br />So then how would it be that rowers tend to have such high slow twitch fibers if it is not the exercise that changes the fiber type? Did they find out they had primarily slow twitch fibers first, and then decide rowing was their sport?<br /><br />I mean even for general fitness, if I have mostly fast type fibers, but exercise aerobically, does that mean I am neglecting most of my muscles? Should I be exercising for fast twitch fibers?

[[old] BobD]

With regard to burning fat, I ran for years with no regard to dieting and my weight stayed about the same. Then I started dieting (modified Atkins) where I cut the white flour, sugar and junk foods as well as reduced my portions. The weight just rolled off, in 7 months I lost 32 pounds.<br /><br />As far as what kind of exercise to do? What is your goal? How much time can you plan for exercise?<br /><br />I am 65, I erg for upper body strength and as cross training from running. I am not interested in being a 100 meter sprinter, I want and need endurance resulting in general fitness and life quality. If you are not training up to the Olympics, you need about two rest days weekly to prevent overtraining. Overtraining not only causes overuse injuries, it also results in your immune system degrading. This is the reason for top atheletes getting those mysterious virus infections. <br /><br />Current exercise theory holds that you progress during the rest or cross training days when the resting muscles can regenerate after exercise and prepare for the expected new stress.

[[old] andyArvid]

<!--QuoteBegin-TomR/the elder+May 6 2005, 10:42 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ May 6 2005, 10:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I tend to think of a 2k on the erg as roughly the equivalent of a 3,000 meter foot race. Both take something on the order 6-7 minutes. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />FYI:<br />World Record 3000M:<br /><b>7:20.67</b> Daniel Komen KEN Rieti 01/09/1996<br /><br />Thank God my 2k PB is just a little faster.<br /><br />Female:<br /><b>8:06.11</b> Junxia Wang CHN Beijing 13/09/1993

[[old] TomR/the elder]

Through training, you can convert some certain fast-twtich fiber to perform like slow-twitch fiber. From the Seiler web site:<br /><br />"[T]he Type II or Fast fibers had to be further divided into two sub-categories. Type II cells were either Fast Glycolytic (FG) or Fast Oxidative Glycolytic (FOG). The FG fibers stored lots of glycogen and had high levels of enzymes necessary for producing energy without oxygen, but contained few mitochondria. The FOG fibers had the best of both worlds, high speed and glycolytic capacity, plus high levels of oxidative enzymes. These INTERMEDIATE fibers were termed type IIA fibers by a fourth research group (Brooke & Kaiser, 1970). The pure fast fibers (FG) were termed Type IIb. This last lingo system seems to have stuck within the physiological research community. <br /><br />For the athletic community, the important information is this. It does appear that pure fast (Type IIb) fibers can transition to "hybrid" (Type IIa) fibers with chronic endurance training. Biopsies of elite endurance athletes reveal that after years of training, they have almost no IIb fibers, but often have a significant percentage of the intermediate, IIa fibers. BUT, the majority of the available research suggests that Type IIa fibers do not transition to Type I." <br /><br />Tom<br />

[[old] Birkyboy]

Was this about FAT Burning at first?<br /><br />Can only speak of my own experience, but I believe if you 'train' the same, your body gets used to the demands and adapts.<br /><br />From time to time.. if weight/fat control is the issue, and not performance, then you need to mix you efforts...<br /><br />Fast an furious works for a while.<br />Slow and Long works for a while.<br /><br />Mixing them up keeps (IMO) you body on it's toes and it keeps working better, not quite sure what is coming next...<br /><br /><br />

[[old] DIESEL]

both approaches work. <br /><br />however, if one is working for fat loss from an aesthetic point of view - i.e. to get that greek statue "ripped" look - then the interval work (no more than 20 min. total) is preferable - because the point is to stoke the metabolism and that is all - your diet and lifting take care of the rest. Caveat: If you doing a low carb diet, it's pretty hard to do intervals - you are pretty much forced to go low intensity then. <br /><br />if you are approaching it from an athletic performance standpoint - you have to mix it up as has already been mentioned. <br /><br />I don't understand this obsession to find the one "best" form of cardio. To the body, it's pretty much the same if you found a way to equalize the intensity of each activity across the board - the only real variable then is the amount of pounding the body takes which makes one activity seem harder than the other. <br /><br />I like rowing - but I will not claim it to be better than hard running or XC skiing - both of those will kick my ass just as well as rowing. Any CV activity, done hard enough, will kick your ass. So why all the quibbling? <br /><br />D<br /><br />

[[old] tditmar]

Still, if you are born with mostly fast-twitch muscles fibers, doesn't it make sense to exercise in a way that stimulates fast twitch fibers, or vice-versa?<br /><br />It was mentioned elite rowers have an abundance of slow-twitch fibers. Is that just the way the cream rose to the top? I mean if you think about it, all body types probably started out trying to become good rowers and only those with the right muscle fiber composition made it to the elite levels.<br /><br />

[[old] DIESEL]

<!--QuoteBegin-tditmar+May 8 2005, 02:41 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(tditmar @ May 8 2005, 02:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Still, if you are born with mostly fast-twitch muscles fibers, doesn't it make sense to exercise in a way that stimulates fast twitch fibers, or vice-versa? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, if you want to get all East German about it, you could get a muscle biopsy done and that would tell you your ratio of fast to slow twitch fibers so you could choose the sport that best suits your physiology. <br /><br />But unless you are obsessed with being an Olympian - who cares? Practice the sports you like. Who cares if you won't make the Olympics or if it's predominantly fast twitch or slow twitch? Do it because you like it. <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was mentioned elite rowers have an abundance of slow-twitch fibers. Is that just the way the cream rose to the top? I mean if you think about it, all body types probably started out trying to become good rowers and only those with the right muscle fiber composition made it to the elite levels. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, that's just one of many factors, but yeah you're probably right. <br />