I'm not sure where this comment came from, and I've read it about 10 times trying to figure out what you were saying, but if you're saying what I think you are, I kind of think this is correct. Low carbs (at least on the level as some of the Atkins diets) doesn't really go with hard workouts.

Okay, I agree there.

Though, I guess for some, if they can work out at the 65 - 70 zone for an hour and only do the 75 -85 for 40 minutes, probably makes sense to do the 63 - 75 % zone. One you might even burn the same number of calories, two, most of the calories would be coming from fat stores.

Table Low Intensity - 60-65% MHR High Intensity - 80-85% MHR Total Calories expended per min. 4.86 6.86 Fat Calories expended per min. 2.43 2.7
Total Calories expended in 30 min. 146 206 Total Fat calories expended in 30 min. 73 82 Percentage of fat calories burned 50% 39.85%
don't know if that will show correctly but yes more fat calories are burned but a less % hence for the confusiion on some regarding the zone to use.


Okay, ?
the fuel we burn, what is it composed of? glycogen, fat & protien, right?

My other point or pointless point, was about the glycogen reserves. This I think is where I was/am confused. Let's say you start cardio. The body checks for the glycogen reserves first as a fuel resource, the goes to the fat/protien cells to convert if there are no glycogen reserves, meaning on a no carb diet. Or does the body use different % of all these resources and at higher peaks uses different % of these reserves. making any sense to ya?

See,i thought when we consume food, our body stores first as glycogen and then excess as fat? When we work out,it grabs from the glycogen. If glycogen is not available turns to fat & protien. Thought part of the reason fro the lactic acid feeling on a no carb diet was the conversion of protien/muscle mass (totally might be off here, wont be the first or last time)

Aerobic exercise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, then if what the definitiion is according to wik, then by having no carbs and working out then you would just burn fat.

Though, still don't see where it says what is being broken down during exercise at the variious levels.

thanks

Second paragraph from the section I posted:

"Initially during aerobic exercise, glycogen is broken down to produce glucose, but in its absence, fat metabolism is initiated instead. The latter is a slow process, and is accompanied by a decline in performance level. The switch to fat as fuel is a major cause of what marathon runners call "hitting the wall"."

so, again, if u want to lose fat, then why not stay at the lower iintensity of aerobics according to that def? If u want to lose fat why not do an hour of lower intensity aerobics than 30 minutes of high intensity aerobic?

1. The lower intensity workout takes longer.

2. Theoretically the higher intensity shorter workouts protects your muscle mass better. Supposedly past a certain time, you are much more apt to start burning off your muscle.

3. Overall cardio capacity/health is improved with the higher intensity, as well as lactate threshold.

4. Higher intensity burns more calories, and therefore fat, well past the point that you have stopped actually working out.

5. With lower intensity, over time, your body gets used to the steady state cardio and those same efforts just don't burn the same amount of fat. You are teaching your body to be EFFICIENT, which is bad for fat loss. For fat loss, you want to be inefficient.

6. With lower intensity, supposedly, after you are finished your workout in the fat burning zone and have pulled directly from fat so much in that short amount of time, your body will get very efficient in storing that fat all over again.


If you need more reasons, there's probably half a dozen "sticky" threads around here somewhere that will provide more details.

Because you dont have to burn "fat" to lose fat.

tony.... Is this one of those mind games????
You win! what the hell do u mean? lol

by the way, we r neighbors, I am in Rockland County, about 20 minutes from ya.

Rockland Co eh? Thats pretty cool. Where do you workout?

I mean that to lose weight or bodyfat, you dont need to focus on burning fat specifically. The whole idea of this came out of the respiratory exchange ratio. To quote NASM:
Fat and glucose are major sources of fuel for exercise. In order for them
to be used more efficiently, the body must be able to receive enough oxygen
(O2). Oxygen allows fat and glucose to be “burned” as fuel. This, in turn,
produces the waste products of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water.

The amount of O2 and CO2 exchanged in the lungs normally equals that
used and released by body tissues. This allows the body to use these
respiratory gasses to estimate caloric expenditure. The method is called
indirect calorimetry. It can be measured with a metabolic analyzer to detect an
individual’s respiratory exchange ratio (RER).

The body uses the highest percent of its fuel from fat when the body has a
RER of 0.71. If the body uses a maximal percent of its fuel from fat at
0.71 RER, then why shouldn’t an individual exercise at this level all the time? The
answer lies in the fact that the only time the body can be at 0.71 RER is when it
is at complete rest. This is how the fat burning zone originated. Though the
percentage of fat being burned is maximal, the amount of energy used (and
calories burned) is minimal and, therefore, not very productive for the goal of
weight/fat loss. Remember, it is not how much fat an individual burns that
ultimately dictates body fat reduction. Instead, it is how many calories are burned.

So this fat burning zone was a true idea that go twisted into something it isn't. Work out to burn more calories then you take in. That leads to fat loss.

Yea, listen to Tony.

Using fat as an energy substrate is not the goal. The goal is to expend enough energy to make a difference.

Not sure if this has been posted yet but it has some relevance that you'd be interested in:

Myths Under the Microscope Part 1: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone - AlanAragon.com

Myths Under the Microscope Part 2: False Hopes for Fasted Cardio - AlanAragon.com

Myths Under the Microscope Part 3: Discussion & Afterthoughts - AlanAragon.com

Okay, losing me a little here (must be the blond thing)

Fat and glucose are major sources of fuel for exercise. In order for them
to be used more efficiently, the body must be able to receive enough oxygen
(O2). Oxygen allows fat and glucose to be “burned” as fuel.

Though the
percentage of fat being burned is maximal, the amount of energy used (and
calories burned) is minimal and, therefore, not very productive for the goal of
weight/fat loss. Remember, it is not how much fat an individual burns that
ultimately dictates body fat reduction. Instead, it is how many calories are burned.

Okay, so, if I have this right (don't count on it) , but basically we are saying it still takes energy at rest, just not as much! At rest the only thing being burned or the maximal amt type of fuel being burned is fat - which still yields burning calories just not as much.
The more energy, yes, the more calories being burned, just other fuel besides fat is being used and in most cases, fat is not the highest % of fuel being used. Though, even though it is not the highest %, it is still more in regards to numbers during exercise than rest. Rest u might burn 40 fat calories in an hour and 1 protien & 1 carb. Exercising for an hour u might burn 140 fat cals, 200 carbs & 150 protien cals. (totally hypothetical in regards to numbers) But I get the gist of what u r saying.

Remember, it is not how much fat an individual burns that
ultimately dictates body fat reduction. Instead, it is how many calories are burned.

Correct. Though, part of burning calories is the body using a % of fat during a body expenditure.


Okay, asked this out there and maybe u know Tony. Does, your heart rate during exercise correlate to the number of calories being burned? Meaning, the higher my heart rate when working out, the higher number of calories being burned, yes/no?

By the way, Blauvelt, NY. I have probably belonged to every gym in Rockland at one point in time. Now, I am at Planet fitness. Cheap as hell, $10 bucks a month. Doesn't have babysitting, classes, sauna or steam, but u know what, I realized I wasn't using these things anyway, since I worked out early in the morning and had to get to work.

True but would you rather burn 100 fat cals only, or 200 total calories? Heart rate is important, would you burn more calories walking or running?

I just seen a flyer for Planet Fitness yesterday. Thats in Nyack right? I use Ramapo College gym because the prices down here are upwards of $75 a month.

It's not a muscle head gym, actually they deter that type of attitude. Go figure.
Anyway, it is in Nanuet. Nice thing is they are 24 hrs Mon - Fri. Sat & Sun they close at 7:00pm. Right across from Rockland Bakery & NY Health & Fitness (hmmm, no i have the name wrong, i think) But for 10 a month and no sign up fee, oh take that back, think they charge u 10 registration fee, can't go wrong. Even if u don't work out and just shower there 4 times a month, it's worth it. lol

Anyway, Heart rate is important. But is there a correlation to the number of calories being burned when your hr is elevated?

Thanks,

Without reading any of the thread aside from the first post, I would say that some "myths" which made your list may not be myths after all. There are tons of science and studies on these issues and many show conflicting outcomes. For example, the old "ya cant spot reduce". There are new studies which show it is possible, to a certain degree (though probably not to the degree the inexperienced person imagines as they do their 500 crunches). Also, the fasted cardio one. I have read about studies that do show certain fat burning mechanisms in the body turn on better on fasted cardio. Bottom line, theories change like the wind and everyday a new study comes out showing opposites to the conventional wisdom. How are these authors so absolutely sure that each and every one of those on the list are actual myths?