Does One Need To "Burn" Fat

I believe so, glycogen's the buffer before consuming fat stores. Fat
burning would occur after gycogen use; not as effective as cardio for
fat burning.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

The term "anaerobic" means "without air" or "without oxygen." Anaerobic
exercise uses muscles at high intensity and a high rate of work for a
short period of time. Anaerobic exercise helps us increase our muscle
strength and stay ready for quick bursts of speed. Think of short and
fast when you think of anaerobic exercise.

Examples of anaerobic exercise include heavy weight lifting, sprinting,
or any rapid burst of hard exercise. These anaerobic exercises cannot
last long because oxygen is not used for energy and a by-product,
called lactic acid, is produced.

Lactic Acid contributes to muscle fatigue and must be burned up by the
body during a recovery period before another anaerobic bout of exercise
can be attempted. The recovery period also allows the muscles to use
oxygen to replenish the energy used during the high intensity exercise.
Although anaerobic exercise does not burn fat, its muscle-building
results complement aerobic exercise (and bigger muscles burn bigger
calories).

Aerobic exercise burns fat. Aerobic exercise involves increased
breathing and elevated heart rate over an extended period of time.
After about 20 minutes of aerobic exercise, the body needs to use its
stored fat reserves as fuel.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

"John Smith" <someone_else RemoveThis @spamisevil.com> wrote in
news:1166dn2iv08rff8@corp.supernews.com:

> "Tha Woyah" <thawoyah RemoveThis @everyactionhasanequalandoppositereaction.com>
> wrote in message news:KvD8e.64$II7.2005024@news.sisna.com...
>>
>> "Hugh Beyer" <beyerxyzzy RemoveThis @acm.org> wrote in message
>> news:Xns963BD00C171D0hughrbeyeracmorg@130.81.64.196...
>>> "Tha Woyah" <thawoyah RemoveThis @everyactionhasanequalandoppositereaction.com>
>>> wrote in news:ywq8e.11645$oc.11812888@news.sisna.com:
>>>
>>>> ... by doing at least some cardio or can it be done with calorie
>>>> reduction alone? Maybe a better question to ask is what is the
>>>> absolute best way to burn fat while maintaining as much hard... and I
>>>> mean HARD... earned muscle as possible? I know, I know, this must be
>>>> the very first time this has been discussed here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to do cardio to mobilize that stubborn fat.
>>
>> Mobilize it?
>
> No idea what mobilizing fat means (unless it refers to taking your
> fat for a jog). But calorie reduction alone will get rid of fat, but it
> will also reduce your muscle (which you can slow but not stop
> by lifting while you diet). For most people (ie not into a specific
> sport or body building), the best approach is a combination of
> all three...lifting, cardio and intelligent dieting. If you absolutely
> don't want to lose muscle while you lose fat, you're going to have
> to go for a slow reduction, where your calorie deficit is just
> under maintenance, so your body doesn't canabalize your
> muscles.
>
> -JS2
>
>

Mobilize? Metabolize? Whatever.

Turns out that there actually is a difference between restricting calories
and adding cardio--Bryan Haycock and Lyle McDonald have both written about
it. Cardio while dieting seems to trigger a hormone response that helps
fat cells give up their fat, and it also increases circulation to cells
that have poor circulation.

Hugh


--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

"Hugh Beyer" <beyerxyzzy RemoveThis @acm.org> wrote in message
news:Xns963C6810D9133hughrbeyeracmorg@130.81.64.196...
> "John Smith" <someone_else RemoveThis @spamisevil.com> wrote in
> news:1166dn2iv08rff8@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "Tha Woyah" <thawoyah RemoveThis @everyactionhasanequalandoppositereaction.com>
>> wrote in message news:KvD8e.64$II7.2005024@news.sisna.com...
>>>
>>> "Hugh Beyer" <beyerxyzzy RemoveThis @acm.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns963BD00C171D0hughrbeyeracmorg@130.81.64.196...
>>>> "Tha Woyah" <thawoyah RemoveThis @everyactionhasanequalandoppositereaction.com>
>>>> wrote in news:ywq8e.11645$oc.11812888@news.sisna.com:
>>>>
>>>>> ... by doing at least some cardio or can it be done with calorie
>>>>> reduction alone? Maybe a better question to ask is what is the
>>>>> absolute best way to burn fat while maintaining as much hard... and I
>>>>> mean HARD... earned muscle as possible? I know, I know, this must be
>>>>> the very first time this has been discussed here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to do cardio to mobilize that stubborn fat.
>>>
>>> Mobilize it?
>>
>> No idea what mobilizing fat means (unless it refers to taking your
>> fat for a jog). But calorie reduction alone will get rid of fat, but it
>> will also reduce your muscle (which you can slow but not stop
>> by lifting while you diet). For most people (ie not into a specific
>> sport or body building), the best approach is a combination of
>> all three...lifting, cardio and intelligent dieting. If you absolutely
>> don't want to lose muscle while you lose fat, you're going to have
>> to go for a slow reduction, where your calorie deficit is just
>> under maintenance, so your body doesn't canabalize your
>> muscles.
>>
>> -JS2
>>
>>
>
> Mobilize? Metabolize? Whatever.
>
> Turns out that there actually is a difference between restricting calories
> and adding cardio--Bryan Haycock and Lyle McDonald have both written about
> it. Cardio while dieting seems to trigger a hormone response that helps
> fat cells give up their fat, and it also increases circulation to cells
> that have poor circulation.

Interesting, I'll have to look that up; guess I always assumed they
were more or less equivalent as far as calory count goes (though
of course cardio has some pretty important side benefits). Makes
sense though that nothing in a biological system is that simple
(bad engineer, bad).

-JS2
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

"analogbass" <zeotroppe DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in news:1113836179.507913.241350
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> It does, but the level of intensity correlates to efficiency of
> fat-burn, plus the nature and intensity differences in walking and
> running affect different muscles.
>
> Adding cardio accelerates fat-burning and toning and improves the
> metabolism. Anaerobic can still tone if coupled with calorie reduction,
> but won't help the heart.
>
>

If you post it five times, it's not five times as stupid.

Hugh


--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

In article <1113837098.982041.314060 DeleteThis @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"analogbass" <zeotroppe DeleteThis @aol.com> writes:
> Walking or running will cause the same calorie loss, but at different
> rates, ...
[snip]

Up to your anaerobic threshold. Beyond that, things get a bit
murky.

During the exercise period, exercising above your AT will not burn
fat at a rate faster than at your AT. However, as was pointed-out to
me recently, exercising above your AT can result in fat-burning
continuing for significantly longer *following* the exercise than
exercising at or below your AT.

>
> Adding cardio accelerates fat-burning and toning and improves the
> metabolism. Anaerobic will still tone, coupled with calorie reduction,
> but won't create as high a level of overall fitness or help the heart
> as aerobic exercise will.

Don't you have those backwards? Anaerobic exercise is exercise
intense enough to cause you to exceed your anaerobic threshold.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jseymour DeleteThis @LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

Old school, new school, they're all interesting-and inconclusive. Best
to glean from all of many sources.

HIT apparently causes more fat burn because more calories are used, and
i do think that it can affect hypertrophy, if for no other reason that
it can reduce nervous energy. Precisely why standard aerobic activity
as i've described, sans HIT, works for me with a splash of HIT.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

Old school, new school, they're all interesting-and simply more fodder
from which to draw conclusions.

Clearly standard aerobic exercise as i've mentioned is optimal for fat
loss, not the anaerobic AT levels you keep talking 'about! Who's
suggesting HIT or anaerobic levels other than you?

HIT apparently causes more fat burn because more calories are used, and
i do think that it can affect hypertrophy, if for no other reason than
the negative effects on the CNS. Precisely why standard aerobic
activity
as i've described, with a splash of HIT, works for me.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

In article <1113840281.764546.251290.RemoveThis@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"analogbass" <zeotroppe.RemoveThis@aol.com> writes:
> I (Runs With Knives) had written:
>> Anaerobic exercise is exercise
>> intense enough to cause you to exceed your anaerobic threshold.
>
> Fascinating statement..

As I understand it: Aerobic ("with oxygen") processes are what burns
fat. Anaerobic processes consume non-aerobic energy sources (thus
"an"-"aerobic" - "without oxygen"). The point at which ones level of
exertion exceeds ones ability to supply oxygen for aerobic energy
supply is ones "anaerobic threshold" (AT). Past that point, the
slack is taken up by anaerobic energy supplies (primarily glycogen).

No?

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jseymour.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

On 2005-04-17, Jay <jw66.TakeThisOut@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> "John Hanson" <jhanson.TakeThisOut@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
> news:kj4561pf8hdoob4o59t95am144rl4ob06s@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Apr 2005 08:07:30 -0700, "analogbass" <zeotroppe.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>Any form of cardio that appeals to you enough to get you to stay with
>>>it 6 days a week, 20 minutes continuously at a minumum-running's one of
>>>the best, elliptical, stairmachine, etc.
>>>
>>>You could lose by calorie reduction exclusively, but you won't see the
>>>same firmness in the muscles, nor the health benefits accrued to the
>>>heart and body through exercise.
>>
>> What if you did anaerobic weight training while reducing your caloric
>> intake. Would you not have muscle firmness then?
>
> from what I have read, the closer you are to being in shape, the method you
> have described is ideal. High intensity, that is a high percentage of 1 rm,
> and caloric restriction. The bulk of the calories taken in shortly after a
> training session.

Ideal for what ? Doesn't matter a whole lot how you obtain a good balance --
lots of roads to Rome. Do almost any exercise and maintain a slight deficit
and you'll avoid the "skinny-fat" look that VLCD end up getting. So it really
boils down to what sort of exercise you like to do/want to be good at. If you
want to lift heavy weights, that way works fine. But so does running, cycling,
cross country skiing, gymnastics, swimming, etc.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

In article <1113848994.588073.182130 RemoveThis @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"analogbass" <zeotroppe RemoveThis @aol.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> Aerobic exercise burns fat. Aerobic exercise involves increased
> breathing and elevated heart rate over an extended period of time.
> After about 20 minutes of aerobic exercise, the body needs to use its
> stored fat reserves as fuel.

It's *my* understanding that's the old school of thought, and now
it's understood that steady exercise at an intensity *below* a
certain threshold is (almost?) entirely aerobic. That threshold is
called the "anaerobic threshold." In fact I took an (imprecise) test
at my health club to establish my AT. It is when you go above your
AT that you start using anaerobic resources, as well.

The kind of "aerobic" training to which you refer has the disadvantage
that, for many (most?) people interested in muscle-building or
hypertrophy, "aerobic" exercise with a strong anaerobic component may
slow their strength-training gains.

You may find this article interesting:

Concurrent Resistance Training and Aerobic Training:
The Problem and the Science Behind the Solution
http://ageless-athletes.com/concurrent_training.shtml

On the other hand (as I found out recently): Anaerobic exercise, such
as high intensity interval training (HIIT), can result in far more fat
burn, albeit possibly at the expense of strength/hypertrophy gain.

I mix it up. I do full-body strength training three days a week,
followed by aerobic exercise on two of those days, and HIIT on one.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jseymour RemoveThis @LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
<abuse RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On 2005-04-17, Jay <jw66 RemoveThis @swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> "John Hanson" <jhanson RemoveThis @northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>> news:kj4561pf8hdoob4o59t95am144rl4ob06s@4ax.com...
>>> On 17 Apr 2005 08:07:30 -0700, "analogbass" <zeotroppe RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote
>>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>Any form of cardio that appeals to you enough to get you to stay with
>>>>it 6 days a week, 20 minutes continuously at a minumum-running's one of
>>>>the best, elliptical, stairmachine, etc.
>>>>
>>>>You could lose by calorie reduction exclusively, but you won't see the
>>>>same firmness in the muscles, nor the health benefits accrued to the
>>>>heart and body through exercise.
>>>
>>> What if you did anaerobic weight training while reducing your caloric
>>> intake. Would you not have muscle firmness then?
>>
>> from what I have read, the closer you are to being in shape, the method you
>> have described is ideal. High intensity, that is a high percentage of 1 rm,
>> and caloric restriction. The bulk of the calories taken in shortly after a
>> training session.
>
>Ideal for what ? Doesn't matter a whole lot how you obtain a good balance --
>lots of roads to Rome. Do almost any exercise and maintain a slight deficit
>and you'll avoid the "skinny-fat" look that VLCD end up getting. So it really
>boils down to what sort of exercise you like to do/want to be good at. If you
>want to lift heavy weights, that way works fine. But so does running, cycling,
>cross country skiing, gymnastics, swimming, etc.
>
You forgot golf.
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat 

"John Hanson" <jhanson.RemoveThis@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:shu861t80gdi9efgrhlt1e39p848e3tvlt@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> <abuse.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On 2005-04-17, Jay <jw66.RemoveThis@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "John Hanson" <jhanson.RemoveThis@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kj4561pf8hdoob4o59t95am144rl4ob06s@4ax.com...
>>>> On 17 Apr 2005 08:07:30 -0700, "analogbass" <zeotroppe.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote
>>>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>Any form of cardio that appeals to you enough to get you to stay with
>>>>>it 6 days a week, 20 minutes continuously at a minumum-running's one of
>>>>>the best, elliptical, stairmachine, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>You could lose by calorie reduction exclusively, but you won't see the
>>>>>same firmness in the muscles, nor the health benefits accrued to the
>>>>>heart and body through exercise.
>>>>
>>>> What if you did anaerobic weight training while reducing your caloric
>>>> intake. Would you not have muscle firmness then?
>>>
>>> from what I have read, the closer you are to being in shape, the method
>>> you
>>> have described is ideal. High intensity, that is a high percentage of 1
>>> rm,
>>> and caloric restriction. The bulk of the calories taken in shortly
>>> after a
>>> training session.
>>
>>Ideal for what ? Doesn't matter a whole lot how you obtain a good
>>balance --
>>lots of roads to Rome. Do almost any exercise and maintain a slight
>>deficit
>>and you'll avoid the "skinny-fat" look that VLCD end up getting. So it
>>really
>>boils down to what sort of exercise you like to do/want to be good at. If
>>you
>>want to lift heavy weights, that way works fine. But so does running,
>>cycling,
>>cross country skiing, gymnastics, swimming, etc.
>>
> You forgot golf.

I for one agree with this. I get an amazing workout playing golf. The
"throw my bloody putter 100 yards after missing a 4 foot put" technique
is great for upper body strength, as well as leading to the cardio of
the following "putter fetch". I've also found the "wrap the six iron around
the nearest tree after a particularly bad slice" to be good, and the
effort required to clear all the sand out of a sand trap with just a
wedge has to be tried to be believed. And I'm always the one who
ends up carrying the beer in his golf bag ...

-JS2

>
 >> Stay informed about: Does One Need To "Burn" Fat