re: Study of Biggest Losers finds that the body wants and will fight to be Fat

quote:

---

Wow, you live up to the meathead douche stereotype.

---

Anything but a meathead. In fact I don't even lift in a gym, simply a garage gym. I was making a point and I guess it went over your head.

quote:

---

I'm not intending to lose any muscle mass. But my current goal is to complete an Ironman one day. I realize that's actually probably not great for maintaining muscle mass, but I'm also not arguing that someone looking to lose body fat go so far as to run 10 miles a day and lose muscle mass. If you train at a lower intensity, you can burn fat and not eat into your protein supply. My legs are 100% getting more muscular during my current training even though I'm doing a lot of endurance work. I may bulk up even faster drinking protein drinks and spending all my time in a squat rack, but I would not burn fat as quickly.

---

You might not be intending to lose muscle mass but you are. And no your legs are not adding muscle while running like that. You are seeing a localized spot reduction due to increased blood flow to the legs to shuttle free fatty acids to be burned as energy. As far as "if you train at a lower intensity, you can burn fat and not eat into your protein supply" Its actually the opposite. Because of the mechanisms your body uses to burn fat, you are using muscle and fat at close to a one to one ratio as fuel. This is the exact opposite of the what the goal should be considering it means a much slower metabolism overall.

quote:

---

No shite you don't have to run. No shite it's calories in vs calories out. I'm talking about the efficiency of getting those calories out.

---

So if we are talking efficiency than why in the world would you promote LISS cardio which has been proven time and time again to be the least efficient way to burn calories when time is considered. Let me ask you what you consider more efficient

Burning 400 cals doing 1 hour of steady state cardio with very little post exercise calorie burn so a total of 450 burned from the exercise over a 24 hour period.

or

Burning 150 cals doing 8 min of HiiT then another 300 due to epoc over a 24 hour period?

ignore the overall calorie numbers, the premise is the same. The HiiT would be more efficient due it taking way less time overall for the same calorie burn over a 24 hour period.

Look up studies on Tabata's.

quote:

---

Because a body builder is explicitly trying to limit body fat to show off muscle. A body builder may have 5% body fat. Doesn't mean he is "healthier" than someone with 10% body fat. I will admit extreme endurance is not going to be the healthiest activity. But don't compare what a body builder does to the average joe at the gym to say that it's a fact that working out burns more fat.

---

What do you think a bodybuilder does that an average gym rat following a really good program doesn't do besides proper diet?

and the whole point is the BB has a lower BF% and more muscle and sure as hell looks better. He also is stronger and more than likely has less injuries. Now overall health depends as much on genetics as anything else. Especially when talking things like cholesterol, BP and the like.

and no bodybuilder stays at 5%. But compare a BB or sprinter at 10% vs a long distance runner @ 10% and tell me which one looks better.





again you should do what makes you happy. If you like training for ironman more power to you, i think that is fricking bad arse and one of the hardest things you can do and anything but a pussy. But don't preach it as the way to a better body because its not the way, proven by science and the real world.

quote:

---

and watch out for the Keto Dick.

---

What is this?

quote:

---

insanely good at temperature regulation

---

this is why I say we are the best. some of the theories on the "runners high" are very interesting and make you think.

I don't really care that much though as I am not running more than two miles ever and it would be very hard pressed to get me to do that. Only reason I would is simply to push and test myself against my old times from my military days.

quote:

---

What do you think a bodybuilder does that an average gym rat following a really good program doesn't do besides proper diet?

---

But you are advocating that a guy who is looking to lose a few pants sizes follows a program that a body builder is doing to lose weight. He is not going to put in that intensity. He is going to go lift for an hour like 90% of the other people in the gym. Not do circuits (which are introducing cardio into your workout).

quote:

---

But compare a BB or sprinter at 10% vs a long distance runner @ 10% and tell me which one looks better.

---

That is such an opinion it's not funny. I 100% agree that HIIT is what helps maintain/build muscle. I do it running, swimming, and biking several times a week. I still take in protein and BCAA's to help keep muscle. It's a huge part of training (just not percentage wise). But, when my body is in the lower intensity ranges, it has two benefits. It allows me to get in a workout while "recovering", and it trains my body to work in a fat burning metabolic rate. I'm talking about during that workout. I don't know how else to describe it but by my pants size. 5 days a week working out lifting for a year, and I stayed a size 35. Same time per week triathlon training, down to a size 32 in 6 months. And I most certainly eat "worse" now (I eat whatever and whenever I want because I'm always hungry). I do 75% of my stuff in that low intensity range. It works.

quote:

---

If you like training for ironman more power to you, i think that is fricking bad arse and one of the hardest things you can do and anything but a pussy. But don't preach it as the way to a better body because its not the way, proven by science and the real world.

---

I don't think training for extreme endurance is good for your body in the least. I'm doing a half in October and going to attempt a full next year. I'm one and done after that, it's not good for you. I do however think that burning off weight quickly is better done through moderate level of cardio. If someone had to drop 10 lbs in 4 weeks, I think it's easier to do so with running or swimming or something. Weight training like you describe is just not done regularly and is quite difficult (it's a tough workout).

the weight training I am advocating is difficult but its the proper way when talking about novice to intermediate trainies.

They are simple liner progression programs like starting strength, greyskull lp, mad cow, wendler.

Focus on learning the proper form on the big lifts and get strong as shite on them.

quote:

---

That is such an opinion it's not funny. I 100% agree that HIIT is what helps maintain/build muscle. I do it running, swimming, and biking several times a week. I still take in protein and BCAA's to help keep muscle. It's a huge part of training (just not percentage wise). But, when my body is in the lower intensity ranges, it has two benefits. It allows me to get in a workout while "recovering", and it trains my body to work in a fat burning metabolic rate. I'm talking about during that workout. I don't know how else to describe it but by my pants size. 5 days a week working out lifting for a year, and I stayed a size 35. Same time per week triathlon training, down to a size 32 in 6 months. And I most certainly eat "worse" now (I eat whatever and whenever I want because I'm always hungry). I do 75% of my stuff in that low intensity range. It works.

---

Of course its an opinion, we are talking looks. But I honestly can't imagine somebody thinking that a long distance runner looks better than a NATURAL bodybuilder. I am not talking the roided out freaks with the guts sticking out, nor am I talking a bodybuilder ready to step on stage. I am talking a natural fitness competitor not stage ready. Example would be gregg pitt or even the damn zach effron picture.

and I get that you lost more weight doing running. Its very easy to see you aren't exactly versed in proper weight training and also overall your burning more calories now. its all about calories.

their is not fat burning zone, heart rate zone etc. Thats old bullshite studies, the same ones that said margarine was better for you then butter.

plain and simple the formula for sustained weight loss is keep the muscle you have as much as possible while eating in a deficit. There is no magic. The choice on how to accomplish this is up to the individual. Arguments can be made for efficiency, but in the end its all calories.

quote:

---

Gear.

---

well that would be true but I specifically said I wasn't talking about those guys. I am talking the 190 pounder that is 10% bf. not the 240lbs freak.

quote:

---

the douchiest comment I have ever read.

---

It was meant to be.but its true

quote:

---

their is not fat burning zone, heart rate zone etc. Thats old bullshite studies, the same ones that said margarine was better for you then butter.

---

I think heart rate zones are misunderstood. Sometimes used under false pretenses (see the cardio machines in a gym). Even in articles and studies "disproving" it, they admit that at lower intensities, your fat burn compared to glycogen burn is higher. What they use to counter balance is that you do 30 minutes of high intensity, and 30 minutes of low, then you burn more calories in the high intensity, and ultimately lose more weight, which is true.

What I'm saying in is that working in the lower zone will take an hour in that zone that burns fat at a faster rate than glycogen. Working intensely, will only last 30 minutes, since it's all you can do. You will burn the same amount of calories, except in example 1, you hit actual body fat during the workout.

Someone made a comment about just cut 300 calories instead of running 3 miles. You could cut that deficit and burn the fat by running as well, so there's nothing to replace it and boom, you just lost body fat. It's still about calorie deficit, and I agree you could do the same with weights. It just doesn't happen as regularly. People don't work out that way for the most part.

quote:

---

Its very easy to see you aren't exactly versed in proper weight training

---

I haven't read up as much on weight training as I have with my endurance stuff. I do dive into things though. It's what I do with a new hobby. I'm not always right, I learn as I go. But, there's a whole side to this training that you probably aren't familiar with from an endurance standpoint. Those heart rate zones are not really used for weight loss on my end. I was never that big and looking to drop fat. I want to stay in that zone 2 to train my body to utilize more fat than glycogen not to lose weight, but so that I can ride 112 miles on a bike and not have to eat a 4 course meal to keep up my energy. I want to use my body fat as much as possible. I am training my body so that my heart rate and metabolism stay low enough to consistently feed in that zone 2 rate. If I get out of it, I'm burning too much glycogen and need to refuel with carbs. This is not exactly what a weight loss program is looking to do, but the results are actually there. You just have to know what you are doing. Since I've adopted a 75% low intensity 25 HIIT, I've seen results faster.

I understand weight training burns calories, but ultimately, for the common person, I do not see it working out as well for people. Now you have to get off your arse and run for more than a mile or two. But in reality, it's not that hard to run 3 miles.

quote:

---

plain and simple the formula for sustained weight loss is keep the muscle you have as much as possible while eating in a deficit. There is no magic. The choice on how to accomplish this is up to the individual. Arguments can be made for efficiency, but in the end its all calories.

---

A good bit of what you said is, as you admit, just your opinion. But, there is a lot of truth here.

All kinds of studies are showing that your body adjusts to your caloric intake. To me, that means the body adjusts/tunes the metabolism to that intake. Genetics is a big part of that, too. That's why leaner performance athletes have to struggle to get enough to eat and bigger athletes struggle with weight issues, despite a high level of activity.

It is all about calories. Lean mass IS metabolism - however fast your rate is. Fat takes virtually nothing to maintain. You lift, get strong, stay the same weight, but you carry more lean mass - you're better off.

This is also why girls, generally, have more trouble with weight than men. They bought into this theory that cardio is the way, when they should be working on strength/muscle. They're already behind on muscle mass from jump street and don't have the T to build it quickly.