article on better fat loss with out low intensity aerobics

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
Post Reply
johndela1
Posts: 968
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

article on better fat loss with out low intensity aerobics

Post by johndela1 »

If anyone cares to read this:

http://jjdev.com/articles/no_aerobics.html

let me know if you see any faults with it.

here is an exerpt:

"What researchers are realizing is the post-exercise recovery period may be extremely influential on the overall outcome of a training program. To lose bodyfat, it is more important to take into account the overall calories expended rather than the amount utilized from fat (1). Research shows when the same amount of calories are burned using high-intensity and low-intensity exercise the amount of bodyfat loss between these groups was not significant (2). In fact, a study performed by Tremblay et al (3), examined the difference of endurance training (ET) and high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT). The endurance group performed their training for 20 weeks and burned an average of 120.4MJ per session. The HIIT group performed their program for 15 weeks with an average expenditure of 57.9MJ per session. In other words, the ET group burned more energy during their training sessions. However, the result of six subcutaneous skinfolds showed the HIIT group lost significantly more bodyfat. There has to be something happening to the body beyond simple caloric expenditure."
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

It just confirms this:
The more intense your exercise, the lower the ratio of fat utilized, therefore being less effective.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

did you read the whole article or just my quote?

If you didn't read the whole thing, and dont' have time read this (if you want). It says the high intensity exercisers lost more fat over the course of the expiriment.


"What researchers are realizing is the post-exercise recovery period may be extremely influential on the overall outcome of a training program. To lose bodyfat, it is more important to take into account the overall calories expended rather than the amount utilized from fat (1). Research shows when the same amount of calories are burned using high-intensity and low-intensity exercise the amount of bodyfat loss between these groups was not significant (2). In fact, a study performed by Tremblay et al (3), examined the difference of endurance training (ET) and high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT). The endurance group performed their training for 20 weeks and burned an average of 120.4MJ per session. The HIIT group performed their program for 15 weeks with an average expenditure of 57.9MJ per session. In other words, the ET group burned more energy during their training sessions. However, the result of six subcutaneous skinfolds showed the HIIT group lost significantly more bodyfat. There has to be something happening to the body beyond simple caloric expenditure."
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Oops :oops: , i just skimmed you post (a lack of time indeed) and didnt interpret that skimming correctly...
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:To lose bodyfat, it is more important to take into account the overall calories expended rather than the amount utilized from fat (1)
That depends.
If you first bulk up on energy before an exercise, that is true, as only if you burn enough calories, you prevent storing those extra calories consumed as bodyfat.
But if you dont bulk up first, and take in energy while you are exercising, its is not true, as then the burning of carbs has no beneficial effect.
They have overlooked this in their research.
a study performed by Tremblay et al (3), examined the difference of endurance training (ET) and high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT)....
Thats BOTH intensive exercise in my view.
In both cases the share of sugars is enormous.
There is not much difference between very intense and extremely intense indeed, as the energy expenditure plateaus. (once the exercise is already intense, even more intense exercise will not (or hardly) bring about any changes in the ratios utilized.)

The endurance group performed their training for 20 weeks and burned an average of 120.4MJ per session. The HIIT group performed their program for 15 weeks with an average expenditure of 57.9MJ per session.
The only difference might be the level of exhaustion, as there is only a factor 2 difference in intensity.
For example: The difference between walking and weightlifting is more like between factor 20 and 200 different in intensity.
In other words, the ET group burned more energy during their training sessions. However, the result of six subcutaneous skinfolds showed the HIIT group lost significantly more bodyfat. There has to be something happening to the body beyond simple caloric expenditure."
Maybe not beyond caloric expenditure, as with more intense exercise more damage is done to muscle tissue, which requires extra repair, which requires extra energy (and also accelerates aging).
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I agree that they are not talking about walking, but I wouldn't consider doing something that you could keep up for an hour intense. I would consider sprinting intense. I just believe that the amount of calories burnt walking isn't enough for significant fat loss. It would take a lot of slow walking to burn a pound of body fat. I also do see your side that this is better because it doesn't stimulate your appetite as much.

I've always thought that sprinters where lean because sprinting, do you think sprinters are good at sprinting because they are naturally lean and not made lean my sprinting? I assume you agree that in general sprinters are lean. Maybe you dont'.

If you are accustomed to this type of exercise why would it cause more damage? I agree that at first one one be sore after doing high intensity training if they hadn't been doing it before, but after a few workouts they would adapt to it.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:I just believe that the amount of calories burnt walking isn't enough for significant fat loss. It would take a lot of slow walking to burn a pound of body fat.
You are forgetting that you are burning fat 24/7.
Loosing bodyfat is not about increasing the burning of fat, but about preventing the storage of new fat (with every big meal and high blood energy levels)

Walking is a perfect way to empty your glycogen depots so that daily consuming a somewhat bigger meal does not result in the storage of bodyfat.
If you do intense exercises you will always need substantial meals to replenish your blood sugar and glycogen depots, but big meals always result in storing new bodyfat.

Loosing fat is about preventing the storage of new fat.
Burning fat will take place anyway (even wghen you sleep)
I've always thought that sprinters where lean because sprinting, do you think sprinters are good at sprinting because they are naturally lean and not made lean my sprinting?
They are lean because they are extremely motivated.
Everything they do and eat is part of the plan that has to lead them to success. Of course an extra pound of fat does not fit in that plan, and is therefore eliminated.
Its not the sprinting, but their dedication and regime.
If you are accustomed to this type of exercise why would it cause more damage?
The whole point of high intensity exercise is to keep your body in perfect shape. This requires pushing your body to the limit, in as much as maintaining extreme muscle volume requires regularly performing extreme exercises. And this by definition requires 'hurting' your body.
Are you familiar with the slogan "No pain, no gain"?
Its true.
When you are 'on the top' (of what you want), its hard to stay there, as it requires that you constantly keep performing those intense exercises.
I agree that at first one one be sore after doing high intensity training if they hadn't been doing it before, but after a few workouts they would adapt to it.
You need to keep on 'hurting' your body to keep its performance / muscle volume at a relatively high level.
Whether its people doing aerobics, sprinting or bodybuilding, they will all tell you that you need to keep on 'hurting' your body to stay 'in shape'.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I'm not talking about progressivly getting harder. I mean my training costists of 30 seconds of sprinting followed by 1 minute of walking. I and I do say 10 sets of this. From what I have read, my muscles will adapt to this type of work and I wont be 'hurting' my self every workout.


I'm not forgetting that burning fat happens 24/7. I always tell people the best way to lose fat is to use adjust your diet and not to depend on excersise. I look at excersise as a way to increase strength ultimately.

I think part of our disagreement is based on the fact that I use exercise for a different reason that you do (as realted to this discussion).
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

ok, I understand. :)
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

I have done the exact same sprint and walk john!

RRM wrote:
You are forgetting that you are burning fat 24/7.
Loosing bodyfat is not about increasing the burning of fat, but about preventing the storage of new fat (with every big meal and high blood energy levels)

Walking is a perfect way to empty your glycogen depots so that daily consuming a somewhat bigger meal does not result in the storage of bodyfat.
If you do intense exercises you will always need substantial meals to replenish your blood sugar and glycogen depots, but big meals always result in storing new bodyfat.

Loosing fat is about preventing the storage of new fat.
Burning fat will take place anyway (even wghen you sleep)
Don't forget everyones metabolism is different. Some people burn more when others don't. I believe that some people are more 'carb' sensitive than others.
Losing fat is about both, not storing new fat and burning present fat. On Wai I've found that too much fruit resulted in no weight loss. My energy expenditure did not match my energy intake. I didn't start losing until i cut back on some of the sweeter fruits.

I apologize for this in advance, bbuuuttt, big meals don't always result in the storing of new fat. Maybe high carbohydrate meals do. Atkins doesn't, and I lived it for almost two years. Yes, I had fewer fruits, but I did have fruit and veggies each day. It was actually very Paleo, as is Wai really, just proportionally different and raw.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

avalon wrote:Losing fat is about both, not storing new fat and burning present fat.
Burning present fat is what ALWAYS happens anyway.
If you increase the burning of fat, the burning of sugars even increase more, so that your appetite will be waaaay bigger.
Which actually makes losing weight harder.
On Wai I've found that too much fruit resulted in no weight loss.
Too much of any kind of energy does not result in weight loss.
Has nothing to do with Wai diet.
My energy expenditure did not match my energy intake. I didn't start losing until i cut back on some of the sweeter fruits.
The culprit is the first, not the sweeter fruits.

big meals don't always result in the storing of new fat.
Always (unless it contains no protein, fat, sugar or alcohol).
If the energy from it lasts a while, such a meal did result in storing new fat, regardless of whether that energy came from protein, sugars or fat.

Maybe high carbohydrate meals do.
Protein contains equally much energy as sugar, and stimulates insulin secretion as much, resulting in fat storage.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

I disagree and disagree and disagree.

I don't think I'm the only one who's had to tweak portions to get weight to come off. Maybe you are different, and we aren't clones.

This might make a good poll.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

avalon wrote:I disagree and disagree and disagree.
Thats very convincing...
Solid argumentation...
I don't think I'm the only one who's had to tweak portions to get weight to come off.
We ALL have to eat according to our need for energy.
Some of us have more problems listening to the body.
Dont blame foods. Just try to listen to your body more carefully; your blood energy levels in particular. Everybody can do this, but it requires from you to focus on it, instead of focussing on low-sugar foods.
avalon
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

avalon wrote:
I disagree and disagree and disagree.
RRM wrote:
Thats very convincing...
Solid argumentation...
Thanx, I agree. I was up all night working on it. :shock:
Post Reply