Back to Current forum index
| Back to Main forum index Back to Current forum index |
| Author | Topic: Intense Exercise makes it harder to lose overweight? |
| mjkst27 04-18-2003 01:44 PM | Hello Wai Thanks for a fantastic site and forum! My question pertains to the glycogen method... I am not sure I understand the idea that "intense exercise will make it harder to lose bodyfat, since a lower percentage of bodyfat (as compared to total energy used) is required for intensive exercise vs. moderate exercise." If this is so, why not exercise intensely, but then eat mostly fruit sugars with minimal fats to replenish the lost energy? Would this not match the proportion of energy used during intense exercise? Regards Mike |
| Wai 04-18-2003 03:47 PM | quote:because it is not about preventing gaining fat by preventing the consumption of fat. Losing bodyfat is not about increasing bodyfat utilisation by exercising more intensively, because the more intense the exercise, the less effective the results. The opportunity to lose bodyfat is in the prevention of storing new bodyfat, since your body utilizes bodyfat 24/7 anyway And preventing the storage of new bodyfat is not in consuming little / less fat, but in preventing the uptake of any kind of energy (protein, carbs, fat, alcohol) in excess in relation to a limited period of time Let me explain: It makes a whole lot of difference whether you consume 3,000 kcal in only 2 meals or in lots of small meals throughout the day When consumed in only 2 meals, the energy may be excess in relation to your energy requirements at those particular 2 moments, while meeting your total energy requirments of that entire day The results will be that right after consuming those 2 meals, the excess energy will partially be stored as bodyfat, while you will be converting muscle energy into available energy in between those large meals to compensate for the lower blood sugar level If you would have consumed that same amount of energy in lots of smaller meals, you would have stoed less bodyfat, and you would have utilized less muscle tissue for energy, in between meals... But, what does this have to do with intense exercise? The more intense your training exercises, the higher your total energy requirements relative to the total amount of fat utlized. And since losing bodyfat is about the proper balance between utilizing body fat and storing new bodyfat, and there is a negative shift in this balance, you will less likely lose bodyfat... (the storing of new bodyfat is related to your energy intake, and this ratio is not improving, while the ratio of fat utilisation relative to energy expenditure has worsened) quote:no, they don't match; fat intake is not related to fat storage; your diet can mainly consist of fat, without resulting in the storage of new bodyfat; if that energy is immediately utilized; if it comes in lots of small portions TOTAL energy intake is related to fat storage, in particular regarding time span (and your time span doesn't change; there remain 24 hours in one day) And... the more intensive your physical activities, the more likely you will consume large meals, resulting in the storage of more new bodyfat PS: yout thread about "clogged lymph system" has been moved to the 'diet in general' forum |
| mjkst27 04-18-2003 06:20 PM | Great explanation. Let me say it in my American way of thinking and maybe others can benefit... your body has only one speed at which it can burn fat - it takes time to break down fat and release the energy for the body to use. SO if you are engaging in moderate exercise, like walking, for an extended period of time, say an hour, the body will have a chance to metabolize a good amount of bodyfat to supply energy for walking. if however you are engaging in brief bouts of intense exercise, like running or sports, there isn't enough time for significant amounts of fat energy to be metabolized. Therefore, much glucose is drawn down from the blood, liver and muscles, since this energy is available immediately. Once you are done with the intense exercise, the body is left to deal with it's depleted levels of blood and muscle glucose....I'M HUNGRY!!! Of course, being in a powerfully hungry condition leaves one very susceptible to overeating (eating more energy than the body currently needs/can use). Overeating of course leads to additional stored bodyfats. Hence intense exercise will tend to promote the gain of bodyfat, not loss. Sound about right? |
| Wai 04-25-2003 07:43 AM | quote:well, you can speed up this process, but the speed of sugar utilisation is then accelerated much more... it's this ratio that is the key factor quote:yes quote:yes, but more importantly, the ratio of utilized fat relative to that of utilized sugars, is higher than when exercising more intensively quote:correct! quote:yes, very much so quote:yes, and the meals will be much bigger, while the amount of sugars that can be 'stored' in the blood remains the same, and the glycogen depots are not linearly increasing accordingly either, which means that more energy needs to be temporarily stored as fat quote:yes, and it will also lead to an increase in muscle weight. And this leads to a greater body volume while the fat remains on top of it (and thus the muscles are not visible as lean muscles) Especially women don't want the extra volume. |
| mysteriouz 05-06-2003 09:20 PM | when you say you are more likely to overeat in a powerfully hungry situation, do you mean you can overeat on raw foods too? (even though they don't contain appetite enhancers) thank you! |
| Wai 05-10-2003 12:10 PM | you CAN overeat on anything, if you really want to the issue is that your body will eventually automatically reject the overeating if it is raw food quote:let me specify: the greater your energy intake (due to a great energy loss), the overeating-percentage may remain the same (be as much / little likely), but in total calories, that overeating will be greater as the energy requirements / intake is greater. the energy intake / requirements are greater please tell me if i need to clarify this a bit more |
| tasya 05-21-2003 10:10 AM | I still do not understand how heavy workouts can make it hard for you to lose weight or even make you GAIN weight. I have read that anaerobic exercise ups your metabolic rate so you will be burning more fat even while resting after anaerobic exercise (Weltman, Weltman, Schurrer, Evans, Veldhuis, Rogal "Endurance training amplifies the pulsatile release of growth hormone. Effects of training intensity." Journal of Applied Physiology (1992) 72:2188-2196). Do you mean, Wai, that despite the weight-losing advantages of a raised metabolic rate this is outweighed by the disadvantages of having a stimulated appetite which results in overeating? How about people who have lost weight by aerobic exercise? Are you saying it is possible to burn off the fat by exercise but MAINTAINING this lowered weight and lower level of fat in the body is very difficult because to do so most people have to keep exercising at this level which is going to stimulate one's appetite and so it's a constant battle to not overeat, a battle which one will inevitably lose? If that is the case can one "burn off " excess body fat and then maintain the lower weight by starting the acne diet and substituting long slow walks for the aerobic/anaerobic exercise)? By the way I am confused too about the long walks: I read in an extract of David Rives' book "Walk Yourself Thin" (I haven't read the book yet although I am trying to get hold of it) that walking as far as you can and for as long as you can (not speed walking) raises one's metabolic rate and induces weight loss in this way. Does the walking help one to lose weight by emptying the glycogen depots AND by raising one's BMR? Short note: I've joined a gym and the two lady instructors are very stocky and one is actually overweight which seems to fit in with your theory, Wai although I don't fully understand it. (I joined the gym primarily so I can use the treadmill for slow walking (I've set the speed to 3.5 km/hour). That shouldn't make much difference whether I am walking indoors on a treadmill or I am walking outdoors, should it? One last question: is it OK to use an exercise bike as a glygogen emptying activity? I am getting bored with walking and thought using an exercise bike (very slow speed) might vary things a bit (besides I need it for bodyshaping). |
| RRM 05-22-2003 08:58 AM | Hey Tasya,quote:True, because the extra muscles cells require extra energy, even when not in action, just to maintain their cell activity ('keeping them alive'). But that extra energy is (ratio wise) more sugars than fats, which means that the required fat:sugar ratio decreases. More esentially, it is not about how much calories you use / need, but whether you occasionally overeat, or not, regardless of your metabolic rate. quote:There is NO weight-losing advantage of a raised metabolic rate! It doesn't make it easier to not overeat occasionally! The more energy you use, the more energy your body will want to take in. And the larger the meals, the easier you will overeat. quote:How about people that lose weight on ANY diet? It is quite simple: if you take in less energy than you have utilized, you will lose body weight. It is not an issue whether you can lose weight by undereating; as long as you can keep up the undereating, you will lose weight. So, of course you can lose weight by aerobic exercises, just as some people can even starve themselves to death. The issue here is: how is it most easy to lose overweight, with the smallest risk of putting it back on later. quote:It is possible to burn off fat on any diet, doing whatvere type of exercise, or non at all. The issue is: Will you be fighting your body's natural mechanisms, or will you be cooperating with it; will you eventually lose that fight, will you need to keep on fighting your body the rest of your life, will it maybe result in physical adverse side efects, or will you eventually find peace with your body, maintaining your natural setpoint weight in perfect harmony. quote:Exercising does not help in "burning off" the excess body fat. Your body utilizes bodyfat 24 / 7, even when you are at sleep. There is nothing you need to do for that. Actually, in relation to total energy output, most bodyfat is utilized when your body's activities are lowest. Trying to "burn off" excess bodyfat by exercises, you will make it more likely that occasionally new body fat is tored. (due to the larger energy intakes, according to your larger energy output) quote:No, just by emptying the glycogen depots. quote:No, besides that walking indoors may get boring sooner? quote:Sure. Your legs are the largest muscles, containing most of the glycogen, so that is okay. RRM |
| tasya 05-23-2003 04:08 AM | Thanks ReformedRobotMan for the explanation. I think I get it now. I was buying into the myth that having a high metabolic rate is automatically a good thing in terms of weight loss. I did read somewhere that people with a high metabolic rate take in more energy (balancing their increased output of energy, and in some cases overcompensating causing gain in weight especially gain in bodyfat if my understanding of the explanation is correct) which corresponds with what you and Wai having been saying. Neither do many of the proponents of the raise your metabolic rate and burn off your fat methods have the statistics showing that their methods result in LONG TERM (say over two years) weight loss to back them up. |
| PhiVan 05-23-2003 09:57 AM | quote:It's so interesting to read this thread because it seems that we have been brainwashed my commercials to think that we have to constantly baet ourselves up to maintain a perfect weight (i.e. strenuous exercise). But the truth is that we need to work with the body instead of against it all the time. Thanks guys for this posting! ![[Big Grin]](../biggrin.gif) |
| Michael 05-25-2003 12:41 PM | I believe it is a pretty well accepted fact that intensive training initiates anabolic processes that makes you gain both muscle mass and fat. It is extremely impossible to simultaneously gain muscles and lose fat. It´s like using the brakes and giving gas at the same time while driving. As I understand it, modern day bodybuilders achieve muscle mass and a lean body by alternating their training and eating schedules in 2 to 3 week periods. Two or three weeks of intense training, heavy weight lifting and over eating, leading to a quick increase in muscle mass, as well as some inevitable fat deposition. The next two to three weeks consists of milder excercise and eating less, leading to a catabolic state where body fat is burned, and burned a lot quicker because of the increased muscle mass. This alternating schedule is supposed to be the fastest way to get rid of excess body fat. It is easier to burn stored body fat if you have a large muscle mass, the large muscles use lot´s of fat also when one is at rest. So even though Wai´s advice seems correct, I think heavy training, especially weight lifting can very well have it´s place if one wishes to lose body fat quickly, just as long as one doesn´t do it constantly. With Wai´s method one probably loses body fat, but one does´nt get to be very muscular, with this alternating method one should be able to get both muscular and lean rather quickly. But forget about losing weight, muscles are heavier than fat. |
| Wai 05-25-2003 01:03 PM | quote:what you forget to mention, is that they lose a lot of muscle mass in this phase as well it is simply ingesting too little energy relative to your energy utilization just like you can starve yourself and lose both fat and muscles quote:that is not the point; you are referring to total fat uilisation, but relative to sugar utilisation, it is smaller! the bodybuilders in their last phase prior to the competition, lose more muscles than fat, actually quote:again, there are countless methods to lose bodyfat unwisely starving yourself would be even more effective (but unwise) again, doing it the way you propose, you will lose more muscles than fat; that is what happens in those bodybuilders just check out their schedules quote:you are forgetting that the bodybuilder you were referring to, actually lose muscle weight in that last phase that is why the 2 phases; first they need to build up the greatest possible mass, without trying to be lean, and then they get rid of the fat, inevitably accompanied with muscle loss quote:if that were true, why dont bodybuilders use such a method? |
| Michael 05-25-2003 03:20 PM | quote:I did not forget it. Losing muscle mass is included in the term "catabolic", but I agree I wasn´t clear enough. quote:Certainly unwise, starving is not an effective way to lose fat, you lose muscles faster than fat when starving. Making the remaining fat more difficult to lose. But I´m getting confused here. To lose body fat, one has to use more energy than one eats, or am I wrong? quote:I´m not sure I understand you. Having more muscles increases the energy consumption, also at rest, and while resting or performing light activities a relatively larger percentage of fat compared to glucose is used than when working intensely. Therefore a large muscle mass during phase 2 should lead to a fast decrease in body fat, provided you eat a little less calories than you consume. Not starving, simply eating a little bit less than the body uses. But I´m sure starvation during phase 2 is a very bad idea. quote:The phase prior to competition is so extreme that it should be irrelevent to normal people. Most of us should be wise not trying to reach a body fat percentage of 2 or 3 %. quote:Bodybuilders losing more muscles than fat? Maybe the ones who do it the wrong way, but they don´t win any medals do they? quote:But they do. |
| Wai 05-26-2003 12:38 PM | quote:correct, but the issue is that one should not use force... those bodybuilder use force (because your body doesnt want to stay on 3% fat) you shouldnt work against your body, but with your body quote:yes, but that is total energy expenditure... (which is not related to loss of bodyfat, since that is only is related to energy intake minus energy utilisation) quote:yes, but this percentage is larger during and after working out less intense all the time... quote:so, you are not advising phase 2 what are you advising? phase 1? in that phase, they GAIN bodyfat (and muscle volume) quote:so, what is relevant to normal people; only phase 1? should we all get fat? quote:again, check out the winner's schedules: check their fat percentage right before phase 2, then calculate total fat volume (based on that %) then check how much total volume they lose (muscle and fat) in phase 2, and relate that to the lost fat you will be surprised by the loss in muscle volume the reason: the body doesnt like 3% fat, and converts muscle protein into available energy to support the composition of new bodyfat (and to compensate for ingesting less energy than utilized) quote: quote:what bodybuilders do, is phase 1 and 2 first (phase 1), they gain muscle weight (x + y) and fat. then (phase 2), they lose muscle weight (x) and fat. you are suggesting an alternative method, which combines only the advantages of phase 1 (gaining muscle weight), with the advantages of phase 2 (losing fat) if there would be such a method, with great effect, why do bodybuilders, in heaven's name, still use the phase 1 and 2 method??? with your method, they would be able to gain muscle weight without having to go through phase 1 and 2! |
| Michael 05-29-2003 05:00 PM | I´m only getting more confused by your answers right now. I´m not sure if you interpret what I wrote correctly. Goal: More muscle mass - less body fat, as quickly and easily as possible without dangerous health effects. Method: Phase 1: 12-14 days of light overeating and heavy weight lifting. Leading to increased muscle mass, as well as some body fat. Phase 2: 12-14 days of lighter exercise and eating slightly less than one consumes. Then alternating between phase 1 and 2 until one is satisfied with the results. What according to you is the problem with such a method? I believe you are confusing this method with the conventional "bulk period" that many bodybuilders use, consisting of a long period of overeating, followed by a long period of starvation. This is indeed a probably quite harmful way of achieving their goal, and they often fail miserably. The problem with their approach is that their phase 1 and phase 2 periods are far too long. Leading to too much body fat, and the starvation periods are both painful and dangerous. This way of dieting and exercising is based on the ABCDE method, |
| RRM 05-30-2003 06:20 AM | quote:That is very much possible, since English is not our native language. quote:I think the confusion all comes down to this: quote:This may be interpret, as if this leads to the loss of bodyfat, but, in fact, first you GAIN bodyfat. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, intense exercise does not at all support the loss of bodyfat, it is the phase that comes after this initial phase that enables the loss of bodyfat, not the initial stage. quote:The method is the same, only the time spans differ. In your method, the alternation takes place much faster. The issue is, that you posted your comment in the forum that is about weightloss, not about gaining muscle weight. Regarding weightloss (the loss of bodyfat), your method is ineffective. quote:We are talking about weightloss in this forum, and how it is most effectively achieved. Intense exercise makes it harder to lose bodyfat, simple as that. If you alternate that fat-loss-inhibiting period (phase 1) with a phase that is less inhibiting, does not make phase 1 less inhibiting. A weightloss system that does not contain any periods of fat-loss-inhibition, are more effective regarding the loss of overweight. If you want to be both muscled and lean, it needs to be a continous effort, which means that you can maintain that levels of fat% and muscle mass. The phase 1 and 2 methods are perfect for those that don't need to be lean all the time; they simply 'peak' to be at their best for a competition or 'the beach season'. But, if you want to be both lean and muscled all the time, you don't want periods of having more bodyfat. If you just want to discuss what is the fastest method to get a certain muscle volume, AND be lean, you better post that in the 'gaining muscles' forum. I already made a start in this thread: link Hope this clears things up a bit. RRM |