Welcome to TheFitnessForum.net!
FAQFAQ   SearchSearch      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log in/Register/PasswordLog in/Register/Password

Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue)

 
   Fitness Forums (Home) -> Weight Training & Fat Loss RSS
Next:  Weight Training & Fat Loss: HIT and Fat Loss at the same time  
Author Message
ToneJohn

External


Since: Apr 30, 2005
Posts: 8



(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:16 pm
Post subject: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue)
Archived from groups: misc>fitness>weights (more info?)

Ok, I am about 165lbs, 5'11 pretty thin. High Metabolism. I am attempting
to gain muscle weight / definition. I have been attempting to eat as much
as possible and utilize protein supplements. I have been tracking my weight
and body fat for the past 3-5 months (i use a home body fat scale, i know
it's not 100% accurate but it should track my progress, if not the specific
%). In the past 3 months i have gained about 8 lbs and my body fat has
risen almost 4%. I am thin in all areas of my body except for the stomach,
for some reason it seems to be getting bigger. I have seen some progress in
other areas ie. chest/bis/tris/legs. I have been utilizing the following
weightlifting routine:
Day 1 - Legs/Abs
Day 2 - Chest/Tris
Day 3 - Back/Bis
Day 4 - Shoulders/Abs
I haven't until the last 2 weeks done any cardio as from many sources state
that cardio will only slow the weight gaining and muscle mass. The past two
weeks i have been doing about 10 mins of cardio (on the stepper) about 3
days per week.

My question is why am i not loosing the gut? Basically should i increase my
cardio? But will that severly reduce my weight gain and muscle defination?
Everyone i talked to said i should not be doing any cardio to begin with,
and just to keep eating and eating.... but i am concerned, (went up to a 34
in jeans Wink Is it my diet? I really don't watch what i eat but again
people whom i've spoke with (trainers) stated that at my size (thin) i
shouldn't be too concerened about what just about eating about 5 meals per
day.

Any help is appreciated.

nuz.

 >> Stay informed about: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Runs With Knives

External


Since: Apr 09, 2005
Posts: 228



(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <COidnReNaea8nc7fRVn-iQ DeleteThis @warpdrive.net>,
"ToneJohn" <222 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> writes:
[snip]
> I haven't until the last 2 weeks done any cardio

Define what you mean by "cardio?" I.e.: What level of exercise?

> as from many sources state
> that cardio will only slow the weight gaining and muscle mass.

That seems to be the common wisdom, yes.

> The past two
> weeks i have been doing about 10 mins of cardio (on the stepper) about 3
> days per week.

10 minutes of cardio, three times a week isn't going to make
difference.

>
> My question is why am i not loosing the gut?

Fat stores. This is where guys usually put it on first. There could
be many reasons for it. Caloric intake higher than metabolism,
caloric intake way too low or too *little* fat in your diet would be
some of them.

The "caloric intake higher" one is obvious. Not so obvious are the
other two reasons. Yes, you can actually gain fat weight by starving
your body of what it wants, as it will automatically react to the
starvation signal by directing more caloric intake to fat stores.

> Basically should i increase my
> cardio? But will that severly reduce my weight gain and muscle defination?
[snip]
>

Depends. One argument is that if you're trying to build muscle and
lose fat, you need to do *aerobic* exercise. Aerobic exercise is
"cardio" done below your aerobic threshold (AT). (I don't know as
you can call such exercise "cardio," as it doesn't really challenge
the cardio-vascular system.) I do this for a *minimum* of 30
minutes, three times a week, following my strength training. I mix
it up, using at least three of four different machines (treadmill,
elliptical, upright stationary bike, rowing) at about 10 minutes
each.

Following a discussion held here in MFW, I replaced one aerobic
workout with high intensity interval training (HIIT) once a week. I
only started that last weekend, so it's early to say if it's boosted
my rate of fat burn. I will say this: It sure does wear you out Wink.

--
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: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Peter Allen

External


Since: Jan 09, 2005
Posts: 229



(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Runs With Knives" <rwk.TakeThisOut@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:115i9unekijvgb0@corp.supernews.com...
> Depends. One argument is that if you're trying to build muscle and
> lose fat, you need to do *aerobic* exercise. Aerobic exercise is
> "cardio" done below your aerobic threshold (AT). (I don't know as
> you can call such exercise "cardio," as it doesn't really challenge
> the cardio-vascular system.)

The same way lifting less than 100% of your 1-rep max doesn't really
challenge your strength?

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Runs With Knives

External


Since: Apr 09, 2005
Posts: 228



(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:22 am
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <d3bfv5$468$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Peter Allen" <peteronusenet.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Runs With Knives" <rwk.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
> news:115i9unekijvgb0@corp.supernews.com...
>> Depends. One argument is that if you're trying to build muscle and
>> lose fat, you need to do *aerobic* exercise. Aerobic exercise is
>> "cardio" done below your aerobic threshold (AT). (I don't know as
>> you can call such exercise "cardio," as it doesn't really challenge
>> the cardio-vascular system.)
>
> The same way lifting less than 100% of your 1-rep max doesn't really
> challenge your strength?

How much less? Define "challenge."

AT is typically approximately 80% of MHR. I haven't even been
working out rigorously for long, and I can do steady aerobic exercise
at just below my AT until I fall asleep from boredom Smile. Sure, it's
*good* for you. But if it doesn't challenge your CV system, is it a
"cardio" workout?

--
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: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Peter Allen

External


Since: Jan 09, 2005
Posts: 229



(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:08 am
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Runs With Knives" <rwk.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:115jd93q7npsl0c@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <d3bfv5$468$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Peter Allen" <peteronusenet.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
>> "Runs With Knives" <rwk.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
>> news:115i9unekijvgb0@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Depends. One argument is that if you're trying to build muscle and
>>> lose fat, you need to do *aerobic* exercise. Aerobic exercise is
>>> "cardio" done below your aerobic threshold (AT). (I don't know as
>>> you can call such exercise "cardio," as it doesn't really challenge
>>> the cardio-vascular system.)
>>
>> The same way lifting less than 100% of your 1-rep max doesn't really
>> challenge your strength?
>
> How much less? Define "challenge."
>
> AT is typically approximately 80% of MHR. I haven't even been
> working out rigorously for long, and I can do steady aerobic exercise
> at just below my AT until I fall asleep from boredom Smile. Sure, it's
> *good* for you. But if it doesn't challenge your CV system, is it a
> "cardio" workout?

Ah, have just re-read your post. I'm used to AT being anaerobic threshold.
Which is usually 85-90% MHR. You can work at that sort of level for an hour
or so, if you're fit, but it will not be comfortable, and you won't be able
to do any more work.

Google seems to be telling me that 'aerobic threshold' is where anaerobic
pathways start to operate, or about 65% MHR - this sounds a bit dodgy to me;
in any case, it would translate to not very much work, certainly. It doesn't
seem to correspond to your 80% thing, though, and I don't think most people
are thinking of that sort of very light work when they talk about aerobic
exercise.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Runs With Knives

External


Since: Apr 09, 2005
Posts: 228



(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

In article <d3cim9$j2l$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Peter Allen" <peteronusenet RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> Ah, have just re-read your post. I'm used to AT being anaerobic threshold.

*ack*! I typo'd. It is *an*aerobic threshold to which I refer,
yes. The point just before your body starts utilizing anaerobic
energy sources.

> Which is usually 85-90% MHR.

It's been my understanding that AT is usually closer to 80% of MHR.

There's also a "lactic threshold," which is the point at which ones
system can no longer get rid of the toxins resulting from exercising
as fast as they're produced, which results in "the burn." LT is the
point just below (?) when that happens.

Some people believe AT == LT. Others believe LT occurs at a
"somewhat" higher level of exertion than AT. I'm in the latter
camp. But that's partly based on my own (limited) experience *and*
predicated on the assumption my AT was established accurately.

> You can work at that sort of level for an hour
> or so, if you're fit, but it will not be comfortable, and you won't be able
> to do any more work.

I suspect I could work-out at what's been established as my AT
(which, coincidentally, turns out to be 80% of the average of what
the different MHR estimation formulas say my MHR is) for
significantly longer than an hour without undue effort.

>
> Google seems to be telling me that 'aerobic threshold' is where anaerobic
> pathways start to operate, or about 65% MHR - this sounds a bit dodgy to me;
> in any case, it would translate to not very much work, certainly. It doesn't
> seem to correspond to your 80% thing, though, and I don't think most people
> are thinking of that sort of very light work when they talk about aerobic
> exercise.

My Polar M32 has my "OwnZone" range as 108 to 141. Since I've never
done the OwnZone "automated" setup, I'm guessing that's based on my
age and weight. That would be 63% to 82% of my guesstimated MHR.
Those limits are 65% and 84%, respectively, if I go by just the old
"220 - age" estimate for MHR. Hmmm...

--
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: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Peter Allen

External


Since: Jan 09, 2005
Posts: 229



(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"Runs With Knives" <rwk.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com> wrote in message
news:115l9i0c1qlldd2@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <d3cim9$j2l$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Peter Allen" <peteronusenet.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> writes:
> [snip]
>>
>> Ah, have just re-read your post. I'm used to AT being anaerobic
>> threshold.
>
> *ack*! I typo'd. It is *an*aerobic threshold to which I refer,
> yes. The point just before your body starts utilizing anaerobic
> energy sources.
>
>> Which is usually 85-90% MHR.
>
> It's been my understanding that AT is usually closer to 80% of MHR.

Offhand, I don't think I know anyone whose AT is that low. My AT is 185, MHR
is 203 (for rowing), so actually just over 90%. 80% MHR for me would roughly
correspond to 2mmol/litre blood lactate, which isn't particularly hard work.

Google tells me this may be just that the people I know (that talk about
stuff like AT) tend to be fairly decent athletes, and for less well trained
people AT is lower. Still, if you find AT work easy, then you probably don't
have your AT right.

> There's also a "lactic threshold," which is the point at which ones
> system can no longer get rid of the toxins resulting from exercising
> as fast as they're produced, which results in "the burn." LT is the
> point just below (?) when that happens.

Yes; however you shouldn't expect to feel no pain when exercising at or
below LT. Your blood lactate levels don't sit at zero until you hit LT then
spring upwards; they increase as you increase the work. The difference is
that below LT, if you keep going at a set pace blood lactate levels will
plateau, above LT lactate levels will keep increasing.

> Some people believe AT == LT. Others believe LT occurs at a
> "somewhat" higher level of exertion than AT. I'm in the latter
> camp. But that's partly based on my own (limited) experience *and*
> predicated on the assumption my AT was established accurately.

No. Usually, when someone refers to LT they mean they did a blood lactate
test to get this value. When someone refers to AT they usually mean they did
a long maximal test (e.g. a 1 hour time trial) to get the value. If you want
to make that distinction, then AT>LT, always; your blood lactate will rise
rapidly at the start, steadily through the time trial, then rapidly again in
the sprint for the line. You do slightly more work than if you'd just sat on
LT. But it's a very small difference.

I suspect that you have underestimated your AT. If you're not sure, try
doing a 1 hour time trial.

>> You can work at that sort of level for an
>> hour
>> or so, if you're fit, but it will not be comfortable, and you won't be
>> able
>> to do any more work.
>
> I suspect I could work-out at what's been established as my AT
> (which, coincidentally, turns out to be 80% of the average of what
> the different MHR estimation formulas say my MHR is) for
> significantly longer than an hour without undue effort.

You have underestimated your AT. And if you want to know your max heart
rate, test it - the estimation formulae are not all that good, and testing
MHR isn't exactly hard (unless you have a heart issue). Just warm up then
start from an easy workload and increase by 50 watts (or some appropriate
number that will allow you to do 5-10 minutes) every minute on the minute
until failure, MHR is the highest reading you get.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Skinny/Fat (cutting body fat issue) 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
   Fitness Forums (Home) -> Weight Training & Fat Loss All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]