How to lose fat for Noobs - Part II

[iDrive]

i'd just point out that it isn't clear whether cardio increases metabolic function throughout the day. for example:

"The Denver researchers were especially interested in how the athletes’ bodies would apportion and use calories....They wondered, though, if the athletes — or any of the other subjects — would burn extra fat calories after exercising, a phenomenon that some exercisers (and even more diet and fitness books) call “afterburn.”

“Many people believe that you rev up” your metabolism after an exercise session “so that you burn additional body fat throughout the day,” said Edward Melanson, Ph.D., an associate professor in the division of endocrinology at the School of Medicine and the lead author of the study. If afterburn were found to exist, it would suggest that even if you replaced the calories you used during an exercise session, you should lose weight, without gaining weight — the proverbial free lunch.

Each of Melanson’s subjects spent 24 quiet hours in the calorimeter, followed later by another 24 hours that included an hourlong bout of stationary bicycling. The cycling was deliberately performed at a relatively easy intensity (about 55 percent of each person’s predetermined aerobic capacity). It is well known physiologically that, while high-intensity exercise demands mostly carbohydrate calories (since carbohydrates can quickly reach the bloodstream and, from there, laboring muscles), low-intensity exercise prompts the body to burn at least some stored fat. All of the subjects ate three meals a day.

To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.” They did not use additional body fat on the day when they exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised than when they did not."

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-why-doesnt-exercise-lead-to-weight-loss/

Excellent post, however I think the article misses the point that you need caloric restriction regardless to lose weight.

[jladuke44]

Excellent post, however I think the article misses the point that you need caloric restriction regardless to lose weight.

good point -- I agree

[dirtydozen614]

Each of Melanson’s subjects spent 24 quiet hours in the calorimeter, followed later by another 24 hours that included an hourlong bout of stationary bicycling. The cycling was deliberately performed at a relatively easy intensity (about 55 percent of each person’s predetermined aerobic capacity). It is well known physiologically that, while high-intensity exercise demands mostly carbohydrate calories (since carbohydrates can quickly reach the bloodstream and, from there, laboring muscles), low-intensity exercise prompts the body to burn at least some stored fat. All of the subjects ate three meals a day.

I bolded that part for a reason because it shows how silly the test actually was. 55% aerobic capacity is very low. For reference, it is generally what a personal trainer would assign a total cardio newbie to do for 20 minutes. It's even assumed to be very easy for beginners and simply only prescribed to build the an aerobic base for you to up the intensity. At 55% vo2max you're not likely to create a very big oxygen deficit and hence not likely to require a big recovery. 55% on a stationary bike is even easier because we all know the bike is the least strenuous cardio machine(at least in my personal opinion). Low intensity cardio also recruits more fatty acid to be used as energy because it is easy and doesn't require anaerobic metabolism BUT high intensity cardio(like HIIT) inevitably uses more fat because the anaerobic system can't meet all the demands by itself(fatigues quickly) and the caloric requirements are higher. Having his subjects do some jank ride on a bike is like going into the weight room and lifting 50% of your failure sets. It's not going to do you any good really. Your body barely moved from steady state and barely has to recover.

This is my knowledge of the subject. Apologies if any of it is incorrect.

[MoeTheRipper]

Im currently 15.4% bodyfat and im trying to cut to 10 or 9% in 9 weeks.i try to follow the rules the best i can but im not too sure about counting calories so i get in a little cardio.late at night i get the urge to eat..alot so i usually go for a protein meal.could eating late at night hinder my weight loss?..awesime thread wavelength really helpfull to noobs lyk myself

[igglesphan]

Im currently 15.4% bodyfat and im trying to cut to 10 or 9% in 9 weeks.i try to follow the rules the best i can but im not too sure about counting calories so i get in a little cardio.late at night i get the urge to eat..alot so i usually go for a protein meal.could eating late at night hinder my weight loss?..awesime thread wavelength really helpfull to noobs lyk myself

Eating late at night could hinder weight loss, BUT it has nothing to do with the fact that it's late at night. If the food you eat makes you go over maintenance, you'll gain weight, regardless as to when you eat it.

[iDrive]

Low intensity cardio also recruits more fatty acid to be used as energy because it is easy and doesn't require anaerobic metabolism BUT high intensity cardio(like HIIT) inevitably uses more fat because the anaerobic system can't meet all the demands by itself(fatigues quickly) and the caloric requirements are higher.

You've mostly got it. Basically fat burning requires an oxygen rich environment so lower intensities promote fat burning... (now that does NOT mean that low intensity is the only/best/premier way to burn fat calories still are the governor of that) but doing low intensity increases fat as a fuel but at higher intensities glucose is used more since it's already in the muscle. In the end it 100% depends how much energy you exert. Most people doing low intensity cardio for a long period (cardio bunny) won't burn as much as someone doing higher intensity stuff for a shorter period (athlete) which is why generally people say it's better.

Cliffs: You can't out run a bad diet.

Im currently 15.4% bodyfat and im trying to cut to 10 or 9% in 9 weeks.

94lbs? not sure if srs....

You probably shouldn't lose any weight at 94lbs you need to increase LBM... unless you're like 4'6"...

i try to follow the rules the best i can but im not too sure about counting calories so i get in a little cardio.

See cliffs above.

late at night i get the urge to eat..alot so i usually go for a protein meal.could eating late at night hinder my weight loss?

Eating after x:xxpm -- No
If still in a deficit -- No.
If over a deficit -- Yes.

Eating late at night could hinder weight loss, BUT it has nothing to do with the fact that it's late at night. If the food you eat makes you go over maintenance, you'll gain weight, regardless as to when you eat it.

Curveball post ya got there lol

[MoeTheRipper]

I eat healthily throughout the day.smaller meals and nothing full of fats.ive cut out soda drinks completely.is dropping 5 or 6% in 9 weeks even do-able?..thnx for the reply

[MoeTheRipper]

Im 4'11" lol prety short i know..genetics prety much screwed me there

[acnessen]

Im 4'11" lol prety short i know..genetics prety much screwed me there

You're also 14...you should shoot up at least 6 inches in the next year or two. Don't sweat it until you're 27 and 5' 7", then you're screwed lol

[nondualism]

Im 4'11" lol prety short i know..genetics prety much screwed me there

Are you kidding? Shorter legs and shorter arms = squat and bench power!

Your deadlifts will suck, though.

[EdgeOfThorns]

My main question is this, how long of a lifting session is viable?

See im used to lifting to bulk and build muscle, which i did for years before i got out of shape. So this whole thing of burning the fat, while lifting etc...is still a bit newer to me.

Basically i lift with heavy weights, theres no grass that grows under my feet in the gym room. I really bust out a great workout for a muscle group or two in a session. Is this enough? It takes me about 40 to 45 minutes...because i dont crap around here, i give about a minute in between sets and get back too it.

But should i be focusing on long long full body type workouts if my goal is burn a bitchload of fat?

Thats my only question. I def got a hell of alot of weight to lose, but the only thing that somewhat saves me is that i spent so many years lifting and bulking that i can carry this weight around and still move like someone you wouldnt think at this size could move.

But i lift about 4-5 days a week. Im just curious according to the OP here, if 40 min sessions is viable at a hard and heavy weight train.

[beeazy]

I have a question about cardio ( specifically running >3miles) and fat loss.


My question is, is there a big difference between a calorie deficit caused by doing cardio and a calorie deficit from just eating less? I definitely subscribe to the fact that its all about calories in VS calories out but lately Ive bee reading that running long distances will cause muscle loss.

Example is lets say over a month two people create a calorie deficit of 14000 calories ( 3500 calorie deficit a week).

Person A works out 3 times a week and eats at a 3500 calorie a week deficit, and does no cardio.

Person B does the same work out, and also has a 3500 calorie a week deficit, but half of person Bs deficit comes from running 3-4 times a week.

Do they burn the same amount of fat?

Do they retain the same amount of muscle?

for this example lets say diets are pretty similar except person B eats his extra calories during desert, or extra helpings of regular meals.

[TheEther24]

I have a question about cardio ( specifically running >3miles) and fat loss.


My question is, is there a big difference between a calorie deficit caused by doing cardio and a calorie deficit from just eating less? I definitely subscribe to the fact that its all about calories in VS calories out but lately Ive bee reading that running long distances will cause muscle loss.

Example is lets say over a month two people create a calorie deficit of 14000 calories ( 3500 calorie deficit a week).

Person A works out 3 times a week and eats at a 3500 calorie a week deficit, and does no cardio.

Person B does the same work out, and also has a 3500 calorie a week deficit, but half of person Bs deficit comes from running 3-4 times a week.

Do they burn the same amount of fat?

Do they retain the same amount of muscle?

for this example lets say diets are pretty similar except person B eats his extra calories during desert, or extra helpings of regular meals.

The irony is that while you've heard person B loses more muscle mass due to the cardio, I've heard person A will lose more muscle since hes getting in less carbs/fats due to lower calorie intake. For example someone who is 195 lbs with 10% body fat that has a maintnence of 2500 cals and eats 1500 calories. They get 700 calories from protein for 175g lean mass, and 800 cals from carbs/fats, and I was told that's not enough and as a result they will lose muscle mass even though they are getting in enough protein and following all the rules. Mainly because 800 cals for fat/carbs isnt enough for a person with 175lbs of lean mass to retain their muscle. They need to up the calories they are eating and do cardio to get the deficit.

Also that once you reach this point, cardio is required, not optional.

Opinions?

[kronotek]

What happens to excess protein (or in general protein)in my body? Lets say I was trying to go for 1 g lbm so about 100g and I ate 120, would the excess protein cause more fat to build up, more muscle, or what? (I do know their also isnt a req. for protein, so i could have any #)

Basically, how is protein used in my body

[m3dude]

JUst to make 1 point clear, you can not just eat 200 g of protein or whatever number you need and nothing else and lose weight. at a certain point eating too few calories becomes a problem. for example a 200 lb male with a decent or better level of muscle maintaining at 2500 cals with what he burns lifting weights is not going to want to just shave off 1000 cals a day of food to lose 2 lbs a week. hed be better served just adding cardio. 1500 cals wont be enough to supply his body with what it needs.

[mosdel]

would a female who is 22% body fat, with a LBM of 100 pounds follow the same 3 rules?

ie, she should be eating 100 grams of protein? and lifting heavy (squats, deadlifts) or is there a variation to the rule? i'm trying to help a friend up her protein intake but she's hesitant, and not used to, eating that much protein.

(her goal is to get rid of the cottage cheese fat on her thighs, so i figured the 3 rules would apply for her)

[igglesphan]

JUst to make 1 point clear, you can not just eat 200 g of protein or whatever number you need and nothing else and lose weight. at a certain point eating too few calories becomes a problem. for example a 200 lb male with a decent or better level of muscle maintaining at 2500 cals with what he burns lifting weights is not going to want to just shave off 1000 cals a day of food to lose 2 lbs a week. hed be better served just adding cardio. 1500 cals wont be enough to supply his body with what it needs.

How would he be better served adding cardio rather than simply eating less??

If your point is that 1,000 calorie deficit is too large, that is a different issue... but it makes NO difference whether the deficit is achieved through cardio or eating less (or a combination of the two).

[surfergirl36]

would a female who is 22% body fat, with a LBM of 100 pounds follow the same 3 rules?

ie, she should be eating 100 grams of protein? and lifting heavy (squats, deadlifts) or is there a variation to the rule? i'm trying to help a friend up her protein intake but she's hesitant, and not used to, eating that much protein.

(her goal is to get rid of the cottage cheese fat on her thighs, so i figured the 3 rules would apply for her)

Yes...they would definitely apply to her!

[iDrive]

Luckily I'm bored this morning.

I eat healthily throughout the day.smaller meals and nothing full of fats.ive cut out soda drinks completely.is dropping 5 or 6% in 9 weeks even do-able?..thnx for the reply

'Healthy' = subjective

Size of meals/Meal timing = irrelevant

Fat does not make you fat

At 94lbs 5% bodyfat would be ~5lbs... sure its possible.
However I still think you should focus on building muscle since you're
A) Only 14 and puberty will help you grow and
B) even for 4'11" 94lbs isn't THAT heavy

My main question is this, how long of a lifting session is viable?

Whatever it takes to get the job done as long as you're maintaining strength in the gym you're good.

But should i be focusing on long long full body type workouts if my goal is burn a bitchload of fat?

Burning fat is not a function of working out. Preserving muscle is what the weights are for. The fat will be burned when you stop eating more than you need to and let your body make up the difference.

Thats my only question. I def got a hell of alot of weight to lose

It took you a while to put it on and it'll take you a while to take it off start now and take it a day at a time and you'll be shredded in no time.

But i lift about 4-5 days a week. Im just curious according to the OP here, if 40 min sessions is viable at a hard and heavy weight train.

Yes.

My question is, is there a big difference between a calorie deficit caused by doing cardio and a calorie deficit from just eating less?

No. That's why cardio is listed under unessential factors. If there is a difference it definitely isn't big and would likely be negligible.

If you really want to look into it there is a theory called the G-Flux theory (google) you could look into... it basically forces you to spend an insane amount of time working out burning calories to get your deficit and the higher you get your deficit through work the more you can eat... idk how much of it I believe

Do they burn the same amount of fat?

Keeping all things equal and they burn the exact same amount of calories then they would lose the same amount of fat.

Do they retain the same amount of muscle?

Assuming they have the same weight lifting plan, yes.

What happens to excess protein (or in general protein)in my body?

It gets used for energy.

Basically, how is protein used in my body

Well.. How We Get Fat
Note: I figure most people would overlook this part so I made it bigger

Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat
Excess dietary carbs increases carb oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
Excess dietary protein increases protein oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat

Got it? All three situations make you fat, just through different mechanisms. Fat is directly stored and carbs and protein cause you to store the fat you’re eating by decreasing fat oxidation.

And I’d note again, since someone will invariably misread this that that doesn’t mean that a low-carb and/or low-protein diet is therefore superior for fat loss. I’m not saying that and don’t think that I am. Because in such a situation, while you may be burning more fat, you’re also eating more dietary fat. So net fat balance can be unchanged despite the dicking around with macronutrient content. It still comes down to the deficit.

Great read, a bit technical.. if you're a true noob I'd stay away unless you're really curious

JUst to make 1 point clear, you can not just eat 200 g of protein or whatever number you need and nothing else and lose weight. at a certain point eating too few calories becomes a problem. for example a 200 lb male with a decent or better level of muscle maintaining at 2500 cals with what he burns lifting weights is not going to want to just shave off 1000 cals a day of food to lose 2 lbs a week. hed be better served just adding cardio. 1500 cals wont be enough to supply his body with what it needs.

Oh, so you're telling me I'm doin it wrong?...

The only level of intake that would start to "become a problem" would be 0 calories for months on end.

would a female who is 22% body fat, with a LBM of 100 pounds follow the same 3 rules?

Yes.

ie, she should be eating 100 grams of protein? and lifting heavy (squats, deadlifts) or is there a variation to the rule? i'm trying to help a friend up her protein intake but she's hesitant, and not used to, eating that much protein.

100g isn't a lot. 2 scoops of a whey isolate is already 50g of protein in 200 cals she should be eating around the vacinity of what 14-1500 cals? a drop in the bucket if she eats a chicken breast and another protein source.

[TheEther24]

The irony is that while you've heard person B loses more muscle mass due to the cardio, I've heard person A will lose more muscle since hes getting in less carbs/fats due to lower calorie intake. For example someone who is 195 lbs with 10% body fat that has a maintnence of 2500 cals and eats 1500 calories.

They get 700 calories from protein for 175g lean mass, and 800 cals from carbs/fats, and I was told that's not enough and as a result they will lose muscle mass even though they are getting in enough protein and following all the rules. Mainly because 800 cals for fat/carbs isnt enough for a person with 175lbs of lean mass to retain their muscle. They need to up the calories they are eating and do cardio to get the deficit.

Also that once you reach this point, cardio is required, not optional.

Opinions?

This post btw relates to what m3dude is getting at, not sure if its accurate though.

[beeazy]

Luckily I'm bored this morning.


If you really want to look into it there is a theory called the G-Flux theory (google) you could look into... it basically forces you to spend an insane amount of time working out burning calories to get your deficit and the higher you get your deficit through work the more you can eat... idk how much of it I believe

What dont You believe? Isnt that what you just said? that the more calories you burn the more you can eat. And if your deficit is 500, its 500 period and doesnt matter how you get the deficit.

[iDrive]

What dont You believe? Isnt that what you just said? that the more calories you burn the more you can eat. And if your deficit is 500, its 500 period and doesnt matter how you get the deficit.

I'm not arguing with physics. I don't believe some of the claims the G-Flux theory makes but I provided it for completeness since some people do and if you buy into it and want to try it then more power to you.

[beeazy]

I'm not arguing with physics. I don't believe some of the claims the G-Flux theory makes but I provided it for completeness since some people do and if you buy into it and want to try it then more power to you.

O ok I assume Gflux must make some bold claims then, ill have to check it out

[Gotsouthern]

Wave I really wanna thank you for taking the time and imparting this info. Its such a simplified, easy to quantify way to look at weight loss. I really like it for two reasons:

1) Helps me keep it all in perspective when I start getting out of hand with my cutting program, ie getting a bit overboard with weighing and measuring etc.

2) and just as helpful, it gives me something VERY easy to say to all my friends and family when they ask me how they too can lose weight. I tell them your three steps and say everything else you may WANT to do is great and gravy, but those are all you need.

Excellent post.

[Kuato]

Very nice info in this thread, thank you.

[SteelReserve211]

I have one question.

Would it be safe to take Nitrous Oxide Universal Shock Therapy while on a cut?

[SpartanProverb]

Very helpful thread!

[iDrive]

I have one question.

Would it be safe to take Nitrous Oxide Universal Shock Therapy while on a cut?

If it's safe under other circumstances, yes.
If it's not safe under other circumstances, no.

[wave_length]

I have one question.

Would it be safe to take Nitrous Oxide Universal Shock Therapy while on a cut?

Probably safe but just as useless as on a bulk.

[igglesphan]

Thought the other thread would be locked and this would be stickied by now...