some beginner questions

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

On Mon, 22 Oct 2006 xenoverse.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

> Anyways, one of my co-workers told me that trendmill only helps the body
> to move blood around, but it doesn't really help me to reduce body fat
> or the size of my belly.

Complete nonsense.

> If I want to reduce fat around some parts of my body, I need to exercise
> that part of my body so I can "convert" fat to muscle.

Also complete nonsense.

> From what I can remember from Biology 11, fat cells are what our body
> use to store excessive energy.

Quite true.

> If my daily energy intake is less than my output, then my body should
> get the energy it needs from the fat cells, thus reduce fat and my
> belly.

Also quite true.

> I would like to know if what my co-worker told me is true, that I really
> need to use the muscles on my stomach like crazy, or perhaps,

You don't.

> I should just keep doing trendmill, maybe with a longer time, and my
> belly will go away in a few months.

You should.

It doesn't have to be just the treadmill - the exercise bike, rowing
machine and crosstrainer are also good, and so is swimming. You might find
you prefer one to the others, which will help you keep at it - for
example, i get on well with a crosstrainer, but hate rowing machines with
a passion - or you might do better if you change to a different exercise
every now and then. If you can ride a bike, actually riding around on the
road might be the way to go - it's good exercise, and much more fun than
running in place on a rubber belt. It's not exactly the best time of year
to start, though.

Oh, and make sure you eat right.

Lastly, your body will lose fat from different places at different rates;
i believe the belly is, sadly, usually one of the last places to go, so
you have quite a bit of work ahead of you. Still, take it one day at a
time, and it'll happen.

tom

--
see im down wid yo sci fi crew
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

Shute wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 17:55:11 -0700, "xenoverse" <ultima_xyj RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the help. I got the idea now. I workout every weekday and
>> take a break on weekends. Currently, I'm doing two 30 minutes runs a
>> day with 5.5 speed and 2.0 incline. My plan is to increase the speed
>> and incline every week. I do sweat a lot while running. I could soak
>> half of my T-shirt in sweat. I guess that should be enough?
>>
>> Thanks for all the help. I will adjust my exercise plan accordingly
>> as I move along.
>
> Twice a day is probably better. Just try not to over do it. The goal
> is to stick with it for a while and not give up because you pushed
> yourself too hard all at once. If your sweating that sounds like your
> doing pretty good.

Or he may have overactive sweat glands [or whatever they are called].

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

"Hobbes" <khobman800.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-E30A20.15492524102006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0610242229230.12082.RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li>,
> Tom Anderson <twic.RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Hobbes wrote:
>>
>> > In article <sffsj2915qollkt0i7t763s128kafu6eel.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
>> > Shute <Shute.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:55:16 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <4q46jfFl5jv4U1.RemoveThis@individual.net>,
>> >>> "Bully" <bully1.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Pete wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I mean, while you move that treadmill you HAVE to burn
>> >>>>> something, i
>> >>>>> guess...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, glycogen. But what after that when there's no carbs to
>> >>>> replenish the
>> >>>> glycogen ?
>> >>>
>> >>> Proteins and fats. Energetic pathway is pretty much established.
>> >>> But
>> >>> there is still no preferential fat-burning really.
>> >>>
>> >>> And, of course, some very nasty metabolic waste products being
>> >>> formed.
>> >>
>> >> What a bunch of bullshit.
>> >
>> > Fats mostly help with the Krebs cycle by producing acetyl-CoA
>> > though
>> > beta-oxidization. However, it still could be argued that
>> > oxidization can
>> > be a nasty metabolic thing. You have heard of anti-oxidants, right?
>> > Supposedly anti-oxidants are good for you.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't think beta-oxidation is going to be damaging. The
>> damaging
>> forms of oxidation are the ones where there's potential to make
>> reactive
>> oxygen species, ie where you're putting actual molecular oxygen in.
>> So,
>> not beta-oxidation, where the oxidiser is NAD.
>>
>> However, that would include oxidative phosphorylation, ie the step
>> downstream of the Krebs cycle, which is going to be working whatever
>> fuel
>> you're burning, as long as you're doing it aerobically.
>>
>> Unless the beta-oxidation is peroxisomal beta-oxidation, about which
>> i
>> know absolutely nothing, although i think it's some kind of freaky
>> stuff
>> which happens in your liver for no particularly good reason.
>
> Yeah. Hence the 'it could be argued' - but I wouldn't. And really,
> unless the amounts are large, the ability to process ammonia isn't a
> big
> deal either. The point was in the real world there is no preferential
> fat burning with aerobic exercise for the vast majority of the
> population. Body recomposition is caloric balance related. The only
> point of the fat-burning stuff is to sell books.

Everything I've read on this subject suggest that any preferential
fat-burning that may take place at the beginning of an aerobics training
program goes away as the body adapts over the following weeks and
months. That's one of the reasons some studies can be so misleading
when they're done on untrained subjects and probably where this myth
originates, IMHO.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

In article <4qcnv7FmmmrqU1 DeleteThis @individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve DeleteThis @fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-E30A20.15492524102006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0610242229230.12082 DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li>,
> > Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Hobbes wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <sffsj2915qollkt0i7t763s128kafu6eel DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> >> > Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:55:16 -0600, Hobbes <khobman800 DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article <4q46jfFl5jv4U1 DeleteThis @individual.net>,
> >> >>> "Bully" <bully1 DeleteThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Pete wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> I mean, while you move that treadmill you HAVE to burn
> >> >>>>> something, i
> >> >>>>> guess...
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes, glycogen. But what after that when there's no carbs to
> >> >>>> replenish the
> >> >>>> glycogen ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Proteins and fats. Energetic pathway is pretty much established.
> >> >>> But
> >> >>> there is still no preferential fat-burning really.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And, of course, some very nasty metabolic waste products being
> >> >>> formed.
> >> >>
> >> >> What a bunch of bullshit.
> >> >
> >> > Fats mostly help with the Krebs cycle by producing acetyl-CoA
> >> > though
> >> > beta-oxidization. However, it still could be argued that
> >> > oxidization can
> >> > be a nasty metabolic thing. You have heard of anti-oxidants, right?
> >> > Supposedly anti-oxidants are good for you.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I don't think beta-oxidation is going to be damaging. The
> >> damaging
> >> forms of oxidation are the ones where there's potential to make
> >> reactive
> >> oxygen species, ie where you're putting actual molecular oxygen in.
> >> So,
> >> not beta-oxidation, where the oxidiser is NAD.
> >>
> >> However, that would include oxidative phosphorylation, ie the step
> >> downstream of the Krebs cycle, which is going to be working whatever
> >> fuel
> >> you're burning, as long as you're doing it aerobically.
> >>
> >> Unless the beta-oxidation is peroxisomal beta-oxidation, about which
> >> i
> >> know absolutely nothing, although i think it's some kind of freaky
> >> stuff
> >> which happens in your liver for no particularly good reason.
> >
> > Yeah. Hence the 'it could be argued' - but I wouldn't. And really,
> > unless the amounts are large, the ability to process ammonia isn't a
> > big
> > deal either. The point was in the real world there is no preferential
> > fat burning with aerobic exercise for the vast majority of the
> > population. Body recomposition is caloric balance related. The only
> > point of the fat-burning stuff is to sell books.
>
> Everything I've read on this subject suggest that any preferential
> fat-burning that may take place at the beginning of an aerobics training
> program goes away as the body adapts over the following weeks and
> months. That's one of the reasons some studies can be so misleading
> when they're done on untrained subjects and probably where this myth
> originates, IMHO.

Just the opposite as I understand it. Beginners are limited in intensity
by their ability to clear lactic acid. They can't maintain the required
intensity to preferentially burn fats. Only highly-adapted endurance
athletes are capable of doing so. And of course, for the most part, they
are already very lean and don't really want or need to preferentially
burn fat.

Beginners may have good results from a aerobic program in terms of body
composition, but only because they have suddenly increased their caloric
expenditure and not raised the intake (hopefully) to compensate. But
they are completely incapable of preferentially burning fat because they
can't exercise at 80% or higher of their aerobic capacity for extended
periods of time. They simply can't clear the lactic acid. And can't
tolerate the required pH level.

--
Keith
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Hobbes wrote:

> The point was in the real world there is no preferential fat burning
> with aerobic exercise for the vast majority of the population. Body
> recomposition is caloric balance related. The only point of the
> fat-burning stuff is to sell books.

I'd certainly agree with that.

tom

--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions 

"Hobbes" <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-B6ECEE.16090226102006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <4qcnv7FmmmrqU1.DeleteThis@individual.net>,
> "Steve Freides" <steve.DeleteThis@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-E30A20.15492524102006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0610242229230.12082.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li>,
>> > Tom Anderson <twic.DeleteThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Hobbes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <sffsj2915qollkt0i7t763s128kafu6eel.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Shute <Shute.DeleteThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:55:16 -0600, Hobbes
>> >> >> <khobman800.DeleteThis@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In article <4q46jfFl5jv4U1.DeleteThis@individual.net>,
>> >> >>> "Bully" <bully1.DeleteThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Pete wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> I mean, while you move that treadmill you HAVE to burn
>> >> >>>>> something, i
>> >> >>>>> guess...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Yes, glycogen. But what after that when there's no carbs to
>> >> >>>> replenish the
>> >> >>>> glycogen ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Proteins and fats. Energetic pathway is pretty much
>> >> >>> established.
>> >> >>> But
>> >> >>> there is still no preferential fat-burning really.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And, of course, some very nasty metabolic waste products being
>> >> >>> formed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What a bunch of bullshit.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fats mostly help with the Krebs cycle by producing acetyl-CoA
>> >> > though
>> >> > beta-oxidization. However, it still could be argued that
>> >> > oxidization can
>> >> > be a nasty metabolic thing. You have heard of anti-oxidants,
>> >> > right?
>> >> > Supposedly anti-oxidants are good for you.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm. I don't think beta-oxidation is going to be damaging. The
>> >> damaging
>> >> forms of oxidation are the ones where there's potential to make
>> >> reactive
>> >> oxygen species, ie where you're putting actual molecular oxygen
>> >> in.
>> >> So,
>> >> not beta-oxidation, where the oxidiser is NAD.
>> >>
>> >> However, that would include oxidative phosphorylation, ie the step
>> >> downstream of the Krebs cycle, which is going to be working
>> >> whatever
>> >> fuel
>> >> you're burning, as long as you're doing it aerobically.
>> >>
>> >> Unless the beta-oxidation is peroxisomal beta-oxidation, about
>> >> which
>> >> i
>> >> know absolutely nothing, although i think it's some kind of freaky
>> >> stuff
>> >> which happens in your liver for no particularly good reason.
>> >
>> > Yeah. Hence the 'it could be argued' - but I wouldn't. And really,
>> > unless the amounts are large, the ability to process ammonia isn't
>> > a
>> > big
>> > deal either. The point was in the real world there is no
>> > preferential
>> > fat burning with aerobic exercise for the vast majority of the
>> > population. Body recomposition is caloric balance related. The only
>> > point of the fat-burning stuff is to sell books.
>>
>> Everything I've read on this subject suggest that any preferential
>> fat-burning that may take place at the beginning of an aerobics
>> training
>> program goes away as the body adapts over the following weeks and
>> months. That's one of the reasons some studies can be so misleading
>> when they're done on untrained subjects and probably where this myth
>> originates, IMHO.
>
> Just the opposite as I understand it. Beginners are limited in
> intensity
> by their ability to clear lactic acid. They can't maintain the
> required
> intensity to preferentially burn fats. Only highly-adapted endurance
> athletes are capable of doing so. And of course, for the most part,
> they
> are already very lean and don't really want or need to preferentially
> burn fat.
>
> Beginners may have good results from a aerobic program in terms of
> body
> composition, but only because they have suddenly increased their
> caloric
> expenditure and not raised the intake (hopefully) to compensate. But
> they are completely incapable of preferentially burning fat because
> they
> can't exercise at 80% or higher of their aerobic capacity for extended
> periods of time. They simply can't clear the lactic acid. And can't
> tolerate the required pH level.

Very interesting - thanks.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 >> Stay informed about: some beginner questions