UKC

following on from the body image thread.

how does one get one's body to burn fat? Eat less I hear you shout, what happens when eating less simply leads to fatigue (sp?) shakes, grumpiness and clumsiness.

If I find myself on the hill or even getting back from a run or bike ride in that state, I tend to eat rather than say 'oh well, I'll start burning fat soon'.

and yes, I do have fat to burn, I'm not just being a typical girly thinking I need to lose more than I do.

In reply to nikinko: keep at it..low impact cardio i.e running slowly burns the most fat...patience, its really frustrating how long it takes to lose fat/weight properly...oh yeah and eating well is very important.

In reply to nikinko:

bonk training, apparently.

http://www.wtcycling.com/BonkTraining.html

In reply to nikinko:

high pulse rate for extended period
say 130 bpm for 45 mins - 1 hr

i thin kthat after about 15mins the body has used up its carb store in muscels and starts on the fats.

In reply to nikinko:


run. lots. preferably uphill.

In reply to nikinko: send me an email and i'll send you some info about optimising fat loss if you're interested. a very effective method is high intensity interval training. i have personally found it easiest on the bike. find yourself a nice hill of reasonable incline and length and then cycle up it as hard as you can till you get to the top cycle back down it and then repeat twice. shouldn't take longer than 15 mins all told. you need to push to the point when your lungs feel huge and your trying as hard as possible. then go home and chill and dont consume anything else but water for an hour or two. this should raise your metabolism to the point where you burn all the glycogen in your muscles and switch to a state of ketosis. bet you wake up in the middle of the night starving hungry. bananas work a treat at that time.

have fun and i'll be interested to hear if you try it.

In reply to brothersoulshine: which makes you absolutely starving..

i don't do this on purpose but whenever i cycle into work i don't have time for brekkie at home so end up eating at work..

to burn fat u need a intake of carbs, prefereably slow burners with a low GI. if ur blood sugar gets too low, u start to burn the protein in ur muscles instead ... losing lean muscle mass but not fat

most people with eating disorders look thin but have a higher percentage of body fat

In reply to brothersoulshine:

been trying that.. trouble is I don't get on with it- (hence still sitting here empty stomached with the taste of coffee in my mouth and no ride yet)

In reply to nikinko:

Whatever anyone says about new fangled diets, poncy exercise regimes, and such like, going jogging - a lot - is still the quickest and most effective way of losing blubber.

also put on more muscle to increase base metabolic rate

In reply to timo.t:

I think this is a bit of a misnomer really, this "fat burning zone".

From what I've read, intervals work is pretty good and just generally egtting your heart rate up. Pushing yourself on cardio stuff for a decent period.#

Your body doesn't just burn calories when working, it continues to do so when recovering so pushing yourself will me more calories burnt in order to recover.

I wouldn't necessarily say eating less is the answer foo wise, changing bad eating habits is better in the long term.

In reply to onlytovey:

what sort of speed do you work your legs at? Higher gear harder work but slower cycle, or lower gear faster cycle? From the experimenting I've done a lower gear faster cycle is more efficient excercise, but not as effecient at getting up the hill.

u don't want to go too high in the heart rate zone as it starts to work the cardio vascular system more and pushes you into the lactic zone which doesnt burn fat ... intervals burn more calories but not necessarily more fat

In reply to nikinko:

1) Nutrient partitioning
2) Nutrient timing
3) Eleveated BMR


>

I'll SHOUT NOW!

If you do that, you'll slow down your thyroxin output as your body 'thinks' its being starved. It'll cling onto your adipose tissue ie. fat (until you become anorexic) and burn muscle for energy via 'gluconeogenesis'.


Eat a bit less, healthier and DRINK more (not booze!)


Thanks for being honest.

HD.

In reply to nikinko:

I've read some research involving various athletes that suggests eating a small amount of someting with a fairly high fat content after exercise canhelp stimulate the body to burn more from its own fat reserves.
Also, eating smaller main meals and snacking (healthily!) in between will keep your metabolism up. Obviously don't snack on high fat or sugary foods or it's self-defeating.
Do not avoid eating within the first 30-45 minutes after exercise, this is when your body needs carbs and protein and can make the most effective use of them in recovery, and again it will keep your metabolism up.

In reply to SimpleSimon:

A tbspn of peanut butter BEFORE, yes.

PWO? (Post workout): I'd have said fast-acting carb (for insulin spike) and whey protein. The insulin response 'shuttles' the aminos straight to the muscle. If you take fat in, it slows protein synthesis and risks laying down fat deposits in the anablolic environment.

HD.

In reply to nikinko:

1. Increase muscle mass - this will increase thermogenesis and so you will be burning fat even when you are resting.

2. Do high intensity and strength based training, NOT cardio work. Although cardio work burns fat, Arthur Devany observes this will encourage your body to adapt such that it will seek to store more energy as fat as this is the primary fuel source you are using. Burning fat secondarily/indirectly through exhausting glycogen overcomes this problem. Also HIT training will build mass, thus encouraging the thermogenic advantage observed above.

3a. Reduce consumption of insulin promoting foods. Basically avoid refined carbohydrate (avoid legumes and grains). Insulin is a chemical signal to your body to store fat...so don't make the signal! It also quenches the growth hormone response so if you can, avoid carbohydrate after exercise (chose protein instead), and you will build more muscle as the GH effect is promoted. This will again give you a thermogenic advantage.

3b. Eating fat will not make you fat.

3c. Restricting calories/semi starving is a bad idea. Such diets have been considered along side low carb diets. In one comparison I read recenlty - even though the total daily consumption of energy was similar between the two diets, the calorie restricted diets came off a lot worse than the 'low carb, high protein, high fat' diet. Fasting (upto about 48 hours without food), is preferable to chronic calorie restriction, and has the benefit of cellular autophagy.

In reply to galpinos:

works for me, I'm not a big fan of interval training, though I've heard its very good..I think you just have to experiment on what works best for you..me, I go running two three times a week 45-60mins(something like that) in the mornings..plus I've noticed that running slow helps the body recover from a hard day of climbing, which is what I want...



did I say that? eating less is a bad idea, I noticed that over the summer I started eating better (I was working so I could afford food), I felt so much better, more energetic, but I did gain about 1.5kg, muscle though, improving your diet is a very good way to lose fat.

In reply to Shani:


so do you think that doing cardio is a bad idea?? what do you mean by "intensity and strength based training"?

In reply to timo.t:

In fairness to the OP, I think we're confusing the issue a bit. I could link to articles/studies which contradict those that others have posted, but at the end of the day, from a 'new' trainer/dieter perspective 'calories in/calories' out will determine weight loss/gain. As for macronutrient breakdown, its dependent on the individual's insulin sensitivity as well. You won't find many training coaches running super low-carb training programmes.

All these 'clever' metabolic tweaks are better left until sub 10% bodyfat when progress slows down. IMHO.

HD.

"High Definition Bodybuilding".

In reply to nikinko: nothing too fast, the hill i've been using is pretty steep so usually one full to half turn per pant. its usually the biggest cog on the back and the middle one on the front. it takes about 2 - 2.5 mins for me to do the hill and usually by the time i get to the top of the third run i'm sweating buckets, breathing really hard and my legs feel ruined.

another good one is to do a slow lap of a football pitch to warm up and then when your breathing is normal again. sprint 100 odd meters as fast as you can. do the whole crouching start and really run as fast as you can. wait till your breathing stabilises and then do it again. repeat a few times. you'll be amazed at how hard it is and how slow you are and the next day every muscle in your legs as well as your obliques and intercostals will be feeling the burn. its really good for working your fast twitch power muscles. excellent training for climbing.

havent managed to find the time in a while but all this chat about it is psyching me up!

In reply to onlytovey:

ps. what shani said!

In reply to nikinko: A big one for us girlies is to stop eating bread and associated foods like pizza/nan etc! Bread is evil - cut it out and follow a good weekly exercise routine and you will notice a difference (I tried it and it worked - also I felt more energetic too)! It will also make you feel better - it creates nasty candida in your body which on women manifests itself as comfy bits and can make you tired and lethargic! But giving up bread is hell! However once you've cracked it when you do eat it again you will realise how awful it makes you feel!

The Sham

In reply to nikinko:

Hi Nikki
After much of the same (shakes, grumpiness etc) I've come to the conclusion you have to find out what works best for you eating-wise. After trying porridge in the morning for a long time having been told it's low GI and 'keeps you going' I've abandoned it in favour of savoury stuff like beans/scrambled egg on toast. Don't skimp on breakfast - you need to feed your body in preparation for the day but also your mind which will otherwise continually remind you that it's 3, 2, 1.5 hours til lunch. You may find that by doing this you're able to go without too much for lunch - an energy bar or a couple of bits of fruit and chocolate - without 'bonking' or getting that wiped out post lunch feeling. Then you can re-fuel with a proper-sized evening meal without feeling guilty and can enjoy your food which will leave you feeling more satisfied. Out of interest - have you tried running first thing without eating first? I find this way you tend to go straight into fat burning which avoids the dizziness associated with a blood sugar low.

In reply to nikinko:

>Eat less I hear you shout, what happens when eating less simply leads to fatigue (sp?) shakes, grumpiness and clumsiness.

Moderation is key. Build up aerobic exercise slowly and reduce calories only by a small amount (if at all). Just cutting out junk foods (sugar/fats/cholocate/beer etc.) might be enough - depending what you eat now. Be strict and don't cheat.

Go slowly and don't try to lose more than about 1lb per week. As you get fitter initial fatigue should become less and exercise more pleasurable.

In reply to Sammy the Shammy:

Disagree. Blanket statement.

Soya & Linseed Burgen Bread is good. If you limit it to a couple of slices a day, around workouts, its fine.

Pizza/Nan = Get fat quick.

HD.

"High Definition Bodybuilding".

In reply to timo.t:

If you want to reduce your body fat long term, then yes, from what I have read I am of the opinion that cardio is NOT the way to go. High Intensity Training (HIT) and strength based training is aimed at depleting glycogen and promotes development of white muscle fibre. This will cause a sustained reduction in body fat.

Whilst I reckon HugeDyno knows his stuff, and I respect his posts, I disagree that " 'calories in/calories' out will determine weight". The 1940's Ansel Keys starvation study and 1960's John Yudkin low carb studies show this.

Also, you should consider that dietry protein has a role to play in cell manufacturing and repair, supplying basic protein needs. This works out at about one gram per kilo of lean body weight. Thus it does not play a role in providing energy.

In reply to nikinko:


I would just like to add when I used to get in from work, I would get the shakes as I was making my evening meal and whilst cooking a (low fat) tea, I would be stuffing my face with toast/fig roles/biscuits/fruit - basically anything 'snacky' to hand.

Then I went low carb!

After about a year on a grainless and potatoeless eating plan (I hate the word diet as it suggests calorie restriction and when I eat I most certainly do not restrict the volume of food I eat!), I notice that I no longer get the shakes, grumpiness and clumsiness.

This is likely due to the reduction of carbohydrate intake stimulating the synthesis of ketones from body fat, an increased insulin sensitivity and and overall reduction in bodily insulin levels. Down-regulation of insulin is a by-product of avoing refined carbohydrate.

As a recent experiment I have been fasting one day a week for the past month - somehting unimagineable in my 'low-fat and complex carb' eating days. But as a 'low carber', I feel a slight hunger on a fasting day, but it is not gnawing hunger and I do not get the symptoms you describe above.

When fasting your body runs on ketones. 'Ketone bodies' are derived from body fat. By definition, fasting will not lead to muscle loss!

In reply to Shani: that sounds intreasting

but where do you get carbs from other then grain and potatoes?

In reply to MKisgreat: fruit & veg

In reply to MKisgreat:

Fruit and veg!

In reply to onlytovey:

U beat me to it!

In reply to MKisgreat:

Society needs to move away from the idea that glucose is the only source of energy for the body.

By the way, if anyone on UKC thinks that you can exercise yourself thin then try googling how many calories there are in something like a slice of bread, and then google how much exercise it would take to simply burn that same amount of calories!

In reply to Rich Hudson:

thermodynamic nonsense. the more calories you burn the more you run down your bodies energy stores. you have two stores glycogen and fat. The harder you have work the more glycogen you have used and therefore the more of the food intake gets stored as glycogen (both in musscles and in the liver) rather than converted to fat thus you get a net transfer of store from fat to glycogen even if you remain in energy balence. This is the purpose of bonk training and carb loading. If you are exercising regularly and in energy deficit and have carbs in the diet the effect will be greater. where the energy comes from during exercise is an irelivence if you utilise glycogen during your run you won't be burning it in your sleep and the same with fat.

The take home is use more clories than you eat and you will loose fat use fewer calories than you eat and you will gain fat. The rest is garbage produced by nutitionalists, that ever present and currently very popular brand of quack. If you find running/cycling on empty unpleasent and inefective then you are with the majority so do what your body wants burn glycogen while you work and fat while you sleep.

In reply to Shani: In reply to Shani: I've been doing the same myself a couple of years ago when I stopped eating carbs in the form of starch, grains, legumes, etc. I found that:

1> I had much more energy from consuming lean meats, fish, low of fruit, veg and nuts
2> I had fewer colds, infections, clearer skin
3> I slimmed down and gained muscle mass
4> It highlighted a number of food intolerances that flare up my IBS - wheat, yeast and legumes being the main offenders.
5> I hardly have cravings for sweet and when I do, I find an apple much more satisfying than chocolate, etc

I love meat, even have it for breakfast and no, I don't need taking any extra fiber as my metabolism's quite revved up now!

I researched these low-carb ways of eating and found that a paleolithic-type diet is actually recommended as it's how our hunter-gatherer ancestors would eat before they settled down and practiced agriculture. The rationale is that scientifically, our genes (apparently different by only 0.01%) and especially digestive systems have evolved very little over time and is not built to process modern carbs. Makes sense if you think about it: feed a cow meat and you see what the result is!

Might sound like cack. I've never been a fan of fad diets anyway, always believed that exercise and eating healthily helped you keep the fat off. But considering I know quite a few people who've gone low-carb in the way described, I believe it's valid "diet", especially if it yields such benefits.

The only problem I find though, is that much of the food you buy from shops contains wheat or starch in some shape or form. Also when I'm away, unless I bring my own food supplies, finding something that isn't bread-y, sweet or otherwise can prove a challenge!

In reply to miku979:

Out of interest what do you actually regularly eat? I agree its really hard to get away from wheat or starch.

In reply to davidwright:

"use more clories than you eat and you will loose fat use fewer calories than you eat and you will gain fat"

Two meals, one of animal fat and one of refined carbohydrate, with the same calorific values ,will lead to wildly different levels of fat storage due to their inherently different insulin response. Insulin is critial to fat storage.

Look up how much running you would need to perform to burn the daily recommended amount of 2500 calories.

In reply to miku979: Sounds pretty logical to me! Chronologically speaking wheat has only been used for about 10,000 years or so - the human body still isn't used to processing it. I actually can't get on with bread/pastry/cakes as I get heart burn within 1/2 hour of consumption. The additional bonus of packing them in was weight loss.

In reply to timo.t:

It means there reading body building manuals (if you want to get fit and by healthy throw out that vain glorious rubbish). To get significant fat loss you have to do arobic work to get the total calorie burn needed and that means "cardio" training. Weight/"strength" training of all sorts just doesn't burn enough calories and the increases in BMR are no better than with high intensity cardio programs. However if you go to the gym and do 20 mins on a cardio machine at a pace you can talk at you won't be doing much for anything.

In reply to miku979: decided to look into low carbing on the internet and found this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4814314.stm

In reply to Shani:


That's irrelevant - you are hinting that 100 kcals per mile suggests 25 miles to burn that off, but it isn't that simple. Living a moderately active, non-sedentary lifestyle (e.g. walking a couple of miles a day, being on your feet, doing the odd bit of exercise) burns about 2500 calories a day - that is why it is the recommended intake, and why most people that eat such don't gain weight. If however I ate 5000 calories in a day, then I would possibly need to run a marathon to burn the excess...

In reply to miku979:

out of interest, do you think it has exacerbated these intolerances? is exclusion a one way street?

In reply to davidwright:

~I am sorry David but your understanding is well behind current thinking and research.

A 170lb man (12 stone) would have to run at 8mph for about 2 hours to burn just 2000 calories! If recommended consumption is around 2500 calories, how the hell would someone overweight and wanting to lose a few stone of fat actually ever reduce fat stores? Would you expect him to reduce calorie intake or run for hours on end at 8mph EVERY DAY? Chronic calorie intake leads to starvation - so how does/could your rationale work?

In reply to johnsdowens:

Do you understand the role of insulin in 'fat storage' in the human body? What foods promote an insulin response?

In reply to Graham Callander: Morning will tend to be some cooked eggs, chicken or turkey (cooked by myself so I know what's in it) and a bowl of chopped fruits with a dozen almonds or other. For lunch I try to have fish or meat with salad and/or cooked vegeatables (either steamed, stir-fried, baked, etc). Dinner tends to be pretty much the same really. I know it sounds boring but if you really think about it, you can get really creative. I mean you can always make yourself a tasty stir-fry, just don't have noodles or rice. Or make a bolognaise sauce and have it with sauteed courgettes. I snack on fruits and nuts, and if at home, more meat! My only treat is a 9Bar which contains seeds and some honey and raw cane sugar.

There are times that when I go out or on holidays, I have no real other choice than to eat the carb-laden stuff, and I must admit that I suffer - both from the IBS and from feeling like crap.

Obviously, I also come across as weird when I treat myself to a burger but get rid of the bun, and bring my own dressing for the salad I choose to have instead of the chips. But that's fine by me, I'm kinda weird anyway!

In reply to Shani: wouldn't it be easier just to do both?? i run, not that much about 2.5 hours a week, very little actually, but at the same time I do high intensity training, for climbing?? so cant you get the best of both by adapting both to your needs?

and if you do lots of sports your calorie intake should be much higher than 2500..

In reply to Shani:

Do you understand that it only takes a moderately active lifestyle to burn 2500 cals a day?

In reply to johnsdowens: Well I kept a food diary for a long while based on my GP's recommendation and found that when I cut out one or all of these foods, the IBS didn't occur. I must admit that I can have the odd piece of bread and feel fine. But if I have a piece of bread on a regular basis, then that does it for me.
I learned it at my expense when I went to Italy recently and had bread-based products three times a day for about five days. I never felt so bloated and never had such bad stomach cramps in my life.

In reply to Shani:

Current thinking is that obese people wanting to lose weight should perform 90-120 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most days of the week. Moderate intensity exercise is, e.g. walking. (this is over the baseline of 30 mins for basic health in the population)


Meanwhile, for the other 22 hours of the day, that same (not very overweight) man will burn about another 2000 calories simply by breathing and eating and thinking. Therefore if he has only eaten 2500 cals, then he has a deficit of 1500 for the day.

In reply to timo.t:

I do 50 seconds of running a week (a 10 second sprint followed by a 50 second rest, repeat five times) at the moment. I also do around a total of 10 minutes skipping a week (in sets of about a minute with 30 second rests in between). I also do a bit of sparring for a total of about 15 minutes a week. Essentially I do little explicit/specific cardio in the form of "running" or cycling.

As for calories, I do not count them. Ever. I stuff my face untill I'm full. I eat 2 - 4 times a day - I let my hunger dictate when. I rarely snack as I don't feel hungry throughout the day and I never get the 'carb crash'

My workouts are often intensive, but short. If I am aiming for trad then I will do a longer climbing session of up to two hours at a lower intensity.

To say this is a bodybuilding idea as some have posted above is very naive and rather ignorant of the history of this kind of diet. It's roots are 40,000 years old and has been promoted in print since at least the 1800s!

In reply to Shani:

Balls. They won't they will in most cirumstances lead to the same levels of fat storage. In one case the carbs will be processed and converted to fat and stored in the other the fat will be stored as fat deposits there is nothing else that can happen to it. If you eat both meals in the context of for want of a better word bonk, in the first case you will still be bonked and stop mobilising fat reserves to slowly burn the already mobile fat in the other case you will lay down the carbs as glycogen or burn it straight away depending primarly on weather or not you continue exercise.

The effects of insulin are wide ranging and complex and depend a lot on the context of its relase and/or reception. If it is recieved by tissues that have no predisposition to lay down glycogen reserves or have adequate glycogen stores those stores will then go to fat. If it is picked up by tisues that have inadiquate glycogen reserves then the absorbed glucose will be stored as glycogen. If insulin worked in the symplistic way you discribe you could control type 1 diabeties with diet, you can't because insulin is the fastest acting of the growth hormones not a metabolic control hormone.

In reply to Shani:


ok i need more info

given that rice , pasta and pots have about 20-25g of carbs per 100g

and most fruit & veg have about 10-15g per 100g im gonna have to eat a lot of weight of food.

banannas are good with 25g carbs per 100 as are parsnips with 20g and corn with 20g

is corn ok?

if so then cornbread should be

is that the case?

In reply to Shani:

which of the following hormones is most similar to insulin in its action, adrenalin, glucogon, testostorone or platelet derivied growth factor?

Which of the above have most effect on metabolism?

Most of all how does a high fat diet get away from the second law of thermodynamics?

In reply to MKisgreat:

What route (on this vast nutritional highway) are you taking?

PALEO?
CKD?
TKD?
ATKINS? (I hope not!)

If you're 'Paleo' dieting, include sweet potatoes/berries (I love 'em), don't go stupid on protein and make your Kcals up with fat. Get enough saturates (coconut oil's good) to keep testosterone levels up and balance omega 3/omega 6 intake.

HD.

"High Definition Bodybuilding".

In reply to hugedyno: Agreed with you. The way it looks for me I'd say paleo. And no, you can never have enough berries and sweet potatoes

In reply to davidwright:



It doesn't. It obeys it. The human body is not 100% efficient which is exactly why extracting energy from fat or carbs or protein will have different results as they use different metabolic pathways.

It is your assumption that a calorie of energy is metabolised the same way, regardless of source which violates this law.

In reply to miku979:

And squash? Mmmm....

In reply to Shani: interesting, if it works for you then why not, I used to play basketball in high school, and we did lots of very high intensity training, never lost a pound (was a bit chubby then), stopped that, now run a bit but mostly do very climbing specific exercises, plus I walk or bike everywhere, I've lost 10-15kg since then(in like 5/6 years), and most of it due to a better diet and now that I climb I've lost about 4-5 in the past year (also due to the fact that I didn't eat properly, no money).. and I don't watch what I eat, well, I've been a vegetarian for almost 8 years so I kinda do it automatically now, but not really(just make sure I get enough of everything)...and besides I enjoy running, especially in the forest..

I tried studying a bit of nutrition stuff, but I only realized that eating well is the best thing to do, and you learn to see what works for you if you pay a bit of attention.

I do think there some methods are better than others, but I also think that they are very specific to a person, and you cant just tell someone to do this and expect it to work, you need to find what works for you, and something you enjoy doing, otherwise its pretty pointless.

In reply to nikinko:

2 things are working for me:

1. Keeping daily calories to under 1500
2. 3 X 45 min Runs a week.

In reply to nikinko:

(This is only what worked and happened for me).

I'd ignore the advice about running from the other posters. If you're overweight then the risk of impact injury is high and even if you lose the fat you'll have legs like Geoff Capes by the time you do - not exactly a climbers build. That's because you are training your legs with a weight well in excess of the weight they will carry once you're thinner. It took months to thin my legs down to merely sturdy after I used running as a tool to lose a stone and a half - if I'd been training for rugby I'd have been thrilled. Unfortunately I was training to lose weight to climb...

<minor rant>
Running is great once you are mid-weight/thinner it's not the best means to that end meantime. Advice to run from those already thin or never at 16 stone (or equivalent heavy weight for a woman) is well-meant but stupid. It's because they have no experience of your situation. Perhaps they should try loading themselves with an extra couple of stone and running for 2mths? They'll end up able to load lug like the Para's or they'll end up broken.
</minor rant>

Cycling is better to start your weight loss, but steep hill climbing when overweight will also 'over-develop' your legs stick to a gentle incline. The poster above who suggested interval training up a gentle incline is suggesting what worked for me, try to stay in the saddle and use a change of pace/cadence to get your heart rate up. Interval train on that basis.

Swimming would probably also be as good, but it's difficult to train in a modern municipal pool with only one congested lane and screaming brats so I've given up on swimming as exercise. Unless you've good facilities I wouldn't bother...

Eat less, calorie counting is boring but it works if you limit yourself to 250cal in any one meal you can eat up to 6 times a day. That's keeping to the nutritionist mantra of little and often. It's do-able with portion control and keeps your metabolism high.

PS. Without exercise my metabolisim just slows (I'm clearly the Ray Mears endomorph type) so I never diet without also training.

In reply to timo.t:

Agreed:

"Eat, monitor, adjust accordingly".

HD.

"High Definition Bodybuilding".

In reply to brothersoulshine:

this bonk training works a treat but the hollow empty feeling it invokes means its only for the desperate and hardcore.

Flirts dangerously with metabolising the good along with the bad.

Its basically self abuse ( not that kind of self abuse )

In reply to hugedyno:

Dude, how is the cutting phase coming along? Are you more ripped than a paper tiger with a pair of scissors?

In reply to Shani:

lol! Nice one Dude. Haven't heard that one before!

Ill last week. Injured as well. Getting thru that now. Back on track. Eating 'clean'; training 'hard'. Hopefully sub 10% bodyfat within 4 weeks (slowly & sensibly!)

Thanx for askin'


HD.

"High Definition Bodybuilding".

In reply to Shani:

Meaning I don't subscribe to latest theory of nutritionalist
quack of the month.



This is actually so wrong and so poorly understood that I laughed out loud. I don't think there is anything in this that is actually corect. Do you hive out your posts to a monkey farm? if so you need more monkeys if they are to produce stuff that actually makes sense rather than just sounds like it does.

If I run for an hour at your sugested low intensity pace of 7:15 per mile I would burn 800 Kcal per hour from running on top of that I would use 150-300 Kcal in BMR giving your ~1000 kcal/hour. Personaly I find I like to run a bit faster than that (8.5-10 mph) depending on how fit I am and how long I am out for. I also find that if I don't have glucose avalible to burn I can't go faster than about 7.5 mph. Mind you that 100-300 kcal per hour goes on all the time even when you aren't running so you need your 2500 Kcal to just keep breathing all day long and thus the 800 Kcal are over and above this. So the overweight person just has to run for 20-30 mins at 8mph every day and keep on their 2500 Kcal/day and they will loose fat at the rate of ~3-400Kcal per day. In fact 'cos their glygogen reserves will rise as well they may loose even more fat than this so long as they eat enough carbs.

As for "chronic calorie consumption causes starvation" I can sort of see what might be being hinted at by this kind of rubish (but it ignores the role of glucogon) in lay terms its rubish you can look at pictures of those who suffer from "chronic calorie consumption" and those who suffer from "starvation" and you will see that one is unlikely to cause the other. In the obstruse technical meaning of the term "starvation" which constitiutes nothing more than no concurent uptake of nutriants from the gut and a depressed blood glucose level below ideal the leading cause is sleep not "chronic calorie consumption" (which would rule out the first condition if you think about it). Even so far as it works in these definitions the "starved" state produced only lasts a short time (on the scale of minutes) because of the action of glucogon.

My proposed action eat fewer calories than you consume leads to loss of fat via the second law of thermodynamics.

In reply to davidwright:

The line "chronic calorie consumption" is indeed crap. It should read "chronic calorie restriction leads to starvation". A typo on my behalf.

Your thinking on the second law of thermodynamics still assumes that protein, fat and carbs are metabolised with the same efficiency. This is wrong.

"What's that Cheetah, you approve of David's post?"

Double espresso before a cardio session.

Apparently it increases the breakdown of fat, which also provides your muscles with more energy. I'm no biologist but I assume its something to do with increasing you metabolism. It just like the caffine hit before training though 8-)

In reply to Shani:

No they don't both are broken down through the same catabolic pathway (the krebs or TCA cycle) via acytyl co-A.



Which law? My asumption was that the 2nd law applies which also means ineficancies in the system and that one Kcal is one Kcal regardless of source. Per CO2 produced you get more ATP from fat than from Glucose and that occurs at the same thermodynaic efficany in both cases 'cos it comes from the same source (but more ATP per O2 used from Glucose than fat which is why sugers are better energy sources for exercise). Atkins "work of metabalism idea confused biochemists the calculations showed it shouldn't exist but they could have missed something so a series of calorimetry experiments were done. People on high and low carb diets were asked to live inside a (rather complex) calorimeter and their BMRs measured via heat output this showed NO change in the "work of metabalism" related to low or high carb diets. Sorry but the idea is just plain wrong.

In reply to Shani:

so basically if you don't eat you will starve, pretty straight forward you'd think...then again a calorie reduced died can lead to a longer life.

http://www.calorierestriction.org/

In reply to Shani:
>

Hmm mearly changes the meaning of the phrase entirely. BTW the metabolic/thremodyanmic calculations are still rubish. You are ignoring ordinary consumption to try and create a point that doesn't exist in reality.


see the post above. This idea has been subject to direct experimental test and been shown to be rubbish. Didn't suprise anybody but there you are. BTW could you answer the questions about hormones or accept that you don't understand the metabolic role of insulin and so can't really coment beyond what you have read in the latest quack tracts.

In reply to Shani:


I wasn't refering to the diet rather the exercise advice which if you want to loose weight is not going to help as the energy useage during the kinds of sessions you describe is low to very low.

The diet is one of a numebr of old saws coming from a collection of quacks who think you can manipulate your health in very sepcific ways via what you eat (basicly you can't and they are all rubish). If low GI diets work at all it is through apetite supression and has little or no relevance to nutrition during exercise.

In reply to davidwright:

My point was to state that trying to lose weight by exercise alone is very difficult given the ease with which we are able to consume large amounts of calories. Still, all calories are NOT equal. Google the two studies I mention above and let me know what you think.


Any chance of a reference?

In reply to timo.t:

Nobody is sure if those rats actually live longer or just think they do....

In reply to Shani:

Which two studies you don't mention any. BTW I don't google this kind of thing if it isn't on medline it isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.....


Might I sugesst you try medline?

In reply to nikinko:

one training regime that i found worked was a 16 week program from the indoor rowing website (i forget its name, sorry, but google it).

it had the full range of short power cardio work to mid-range to longer fat burning programs, albeit with the aim of improving your rowing as much as the weight/body stuff. the longer ones of 45 minutes or more are what you want. interval trainig is good - fartlek, google that for another angle.

the rowing did wonders for my hand and arm and shoulder strength as well, which helped my climbing. i only stopped because of a bad hip injury that kept me off it for months.

theres one suggestion for you.

as for diet, good amount of carbs, esp. after exercise, low fat and low calorie and lowish quantity. thats what i did.

ahunter

In reply to davidwright:

Ansel Keys starvation study and John Yudkin low carb study.

In reply to nikinko:

http://www.concept2.co.uk/weightloss/

excellent programme, my mates who are triathletes use it for training, patience is the key though!

In reply to johnsdowens: Lol! Squashed squash then, with a bit of olive oil... with my roast dinner (bar the potatoes). Lovely !!

In reply to Shani:

Dear Shani

I’m sure you’re well meaning and your sticking to this dietary scheme show admiral willpower. However if you want people to take what you say seriously can I recommend reducing your use of the following:

1. Sweeping statements /nebulous generalisations.
E.g. ‘Eating fat will not make you fat.’
What sort of statement is that? Is this a reasonable amount of fat as part of a balanced diet or maybe binging on trans fats is the latest wunder-diet? This sort of vague nonsense is at best misleading.
2. Hyperbole.
E.g. ‘Trust me, with a low carb diet you will have egg-box abs within a month’
There you go again. Stop it you’re being silly.
3. Logic leaps.
E.g. ‘The whole notion of 'eating fat will make you fat' is absolute crap, and most of these low fat foods are full of carbs and sugars that make them far more fattening than if you had simply consumed the fat they removed!’
Because low fat foods are often full of crap doesn’t mean that you should eat more fat.
4. Psuedo-science.
E.g. ‘Increase muscle mass - this will increase thermogenesis and so you will be burning fat even when you are resting.’
Please..tell me about the replenishing qualities that fruit antacids would have on my hair!

These habits detract from the valid points you do make.

In reply to Shani:

Came across this while flicking through the magazine rack on a coffee break. Not exactly what you are looking for (mainly focused on brain activity) but at a realistic level for the more scientificaly literate on this forum is the following

Lovett 2007 New Scientist 2617 30

Of particular relevence are the sections on the non-existance of suger "rushes" and "crashes" in healthy individuals following normal meals and the final section on the effects of different diets on those with relativly tight or loose regulation of blood glucose also show the ineffectiveness of the low carb rational.

In reply to nikinko:

Spontaneous combustion!

In reply to nikinko:
over the last few months I have been trying out going out on the hills on a modest breakfast (eg one weetabix) and then not eating but only drinking till back down again (carry the food as normal, just don't eat till I get home then join the family for a normal lunch.

hard to do at first but now body has adapted

seems to help

In reply to nikinko: I work 2 days 2nights 4 off n found i couldn't loose weight. This was more down to when i was eating rather than what i was eating. I was eating my main meal at 8pm and in bed for 10pm. I now eat frequent smaller meals throughout the day n have a salad or cereal when i get home. This combined with long, medium intensity aerobic activity has got the scales going in the right direction. At last.

In reply to nikinko:
I have another even better plan. Get depressed, you then can't be bothered to eat, so the weight just drops off. Your climbing also gets better cos you just don't care if you fall. Trouble is it's doubtful you'll ever muster the energy to go out.

In reply to nikinko:

I'm trying to stay as fit as possible at the moment and this involves at least three one-hour hilly runs a week and at least three half-hour visits to the climbing wall. I also try to keep my carbs down by reducing potatos, rice, bread and pasta and eat more fruit and veg instead, and I don't eat puddings and sweets. If I'm busy I just don't bother to eat. This is all working very well and my weight is as low as it's ever been in my adult life atm.

In reply to Ally Hill:

Guilty on most charges!

1) The idea for posting something along the lines of ‘Eating fat will not make you fat’ is simply to forcefully challenge the notion that fat per se is fattening - and that the relationship is as simple as 'eat fat get fat'. The majority of the diet industry is preoccupied with reducing fat in food. Look in a supermarket for the amount of goods labelled 'low fat'. Most of the people I know who are on a diet are preoccupied with avoiding fat, particularly saturated fat. But this supposed relationship between obesity and eating fat, which is implied by the diet industry is tenuous. Certainly the concept of going low fat will cause bodyfat loss is a pretty empty concept.

2) Hyperbole - not sure if there is anything with such enthusiastic encouragement! I was amazed at how a paleo diet reduced my bodyfat levels without resorting to large cardio sessions.

3) Logic leaps - Look at Weight Watchers low fat ready meals! Reduced fat is trumpeted - as if there is something implicitly unhealthy about the saturated fat in the meat therein.

4) Not sure about your reference to hair and the like, but muscle burns fat. More muscle burns more fat. Do you disagree with this?

I know some of my analogies and stuff may be a bit wild, but paleo eating really works. I tried to give an example above about exercising and weight loss. Now I KNOW that we will burn off 2500 calories during the course of a day as a consequence of bioloigcal function, but I wanted to use a unit that people could relate to (ie people can pictue how much they eat in a day). I was just trying to point out that to exercise off excessive calories is really hard. To exercise off bodyfat and keep it off is also really hard. There is a dietry alternative that does not involve calorie counting.

Going paleo has enabled me to reduce fat levels without the pain and anguish of hard aerobic sessions and that is something I want to share with others because in the diet obsessed, low fat world, it is easy to miss.

In reply to davidwright:


Cheers for the link. Will look up the article. I am a bit suspicious about the term 'normal meal'. Not sure what/whose definition of 'normal' will be used! Qualifying 'healthy' is also to an extent something that you could deem subjective.


I had a look on Medline for something on metabolism of proteins, fat and carbs but couldn't find the article you refered to on "17:01 Tue". I would be interested in reading up on this if you have any info.

Cheers.

In reply to Shani:

There is a very good reason for avoiding fats if you want to loose weight and it comes down to this energy in (in what ever form) > energy out => weight gain (almost certainly in the form of fat) and energy in < energy out => weight loss again in the form of fat. Why does the body change fat levels like this? because fat is the most energy dense form of food store. Cutting out fat works because you get rid of the most energy dense part of the product and replace it with something less energy dense thereby reducing the energy content thereby helping with the fundermental equation. An obsstion with low fat food is not much better in terms of weight loss than an obsetion with low carb food. It is however beter from the point of view of health as your body can convert carbs to fat to fill any non-specific fat deficit however if you are short of carbs you can't go the otherway round and you start to get musscel wastage. Also high fat diets lead to high levels of fat in circulation and thus to problems with circulation in the long term.


I suspect it didn't reduce your body fat as much as you thought. I think there are other changes that you have rationalised as loss of fat. Those changes while good for loking "ripped" as you put it have performance implications for climbing and other sports.

>

There is, or have 30 years of studies into heart and circulatory desease actually gone straight in one ear through the empty space and out the other?


put in this simplistic way yes I do.


However put like that it is also grossly misleading. Heres puting it another way running 25 miles in a week consumes 8 days calories in 7. Its not hard to do that much exericse in a week it comes in at the 20-30 mins a day we should all be doing anyway. It is also enough to make most people go from weight gain to weight loss if they don't change there diet at all.

I suspect you don't like areobic exercise because its hard work and while it will help your health and keep weight of it doesn't lead to the kind of musscel definition your vainty thinks is healthy.

In reply to Shani:
Normal ment not 300ml of 2M glucose.

In reply to Shani:

Presumably the example of 50 seconds of sprinting per week also comes from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers?

In reply to Shani: I know we've disagreed before and you seem to dismiss formal education, qualification and clinical experience in the field as an irrelevance but I can't sit back and say nothing about what you have written, mainly because you exhort others to follow the example. You'll be glad to know however that I'm working and I'm not getting involved in an argument.

I know you've educated yourself on all this which is admirable but do yourself a favour and absorb the contents of the following standard texts, familiar basic building blocks to anyone in the field, before cherry picking / over-valuing individual journal articles out of context and creating your own belief system - the standard prevailing view is just that for good reasons and over-reliance on way-out views is the age-old hazard of the autodidact.

Guyton - Medical Physiology
Stryer - Biochemistry
Brookes - Exercise Physiology

Does it occur to you that some people might follow your advice? Fair cop for believing what you read on a website you might say but there are teenagers on here who want to be the next Dave M, Ben Moon etc. Plain old boring conspiracy driven contemporary medicine / physiology would suggest that some of your advice could cause serious long term health problems - are you easy with that? Do you feel a burden of responsibility?

Incidentally, perhaps it's time to call Ron Hill, Billy Bland and Kenny Stuart up and explain that they had it all wrong - or shall we wait until those 30 year old records are broken?


cheers, P

Oh btw: eat less; exercise more; avoid processed carbs, saturated fats and too much booze; keep 0% calories as fat and if doing endurance stuff up the carbs. Simple as "42"

In reply to davidwright:

In Reply to Davidwright:

>"There is, or have 30 years of studies into heart and circulatory desease actually gone straight in one ear through the empty space and out the other?"

You are obviously unaware of some of the more recent research regarding fat and heart disease. You have Google and Medline so I will let you do your own legwork.



Quite a few health professionals would disagree with the simplistic analysis that 'exercising more reduces weight'. Reilly JJ, et al. Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38979.623773.55 (published 6 October 2006)

>"I suspect you don't like areobic exercise because its hard work and while it will help your health and keep weight of it doesn't lead to the kind of musscel definition your vainty thinks is healthy. "

I find aerobic exercise a bit boring - particularly the monotony of running for 30 + minutes three times a week. Running is ok if you have a problem to mull over - in which case it can be quite theraputic. But to be honest a nice hill walk with a bit of weight at a quickish pace would be of more interest to me. It is not vanity that makes me want to lose fat it is the fact that I wish to improve my strength to weight ratio. As far as I am concerned, visible abs are the most readily available and accurate indicator of fat levels. It has nothing to do with vanity - that would be body building. I just don't see a point in hauling dead weight up a cliff. If you think I don't like hard work try this routine which should take you 6.5 minutes in all for which you only work for 4 minutes:

Stage 1
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - fast skip (around 3 skips per second if you can. Consistency is the key)
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - can can skip (raise your knees up so that you thigh is parallel to the ground. Do this as fast as you can. Don't let your legs drop.)

Stage 2
Rest 1 Minute

Stage 3
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - fast skip (around 3 skips per second if you can. Consistency is the key)
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - fast skip (around 3 skips per second if you can. Consistency is the key)

Stage 4
Rest 30 Seconds

Stage 5
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - can can skip (raise your knees up so that you thigh is parallel to the ground. Do this as fast as you can. Don't let your legs drop.)
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - can can skip (raise your knees up so that you thigh is parallel to the ground. Do this as fast as you can. Don't let your legs drop.)

Stage 6
Rest 1 Minute

Stage 7
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - fast skip (around 3 skips per second if you can. Consistency is the key)
15 Sec - slow skip
15 Sec - can can skip (raise your knees up so that you thigh is parallel to the ground. Do this as fast as you can. Don't let your legs drop.)

Stage 8 (optional)
Go climbing.

Finished. Tell me if you found it easy. If you want my current upper body work out then you will need a set of gymnastic rings.

I followed up your reference in New Scientist (Lovett 2007 New Scientist 2617 30). You actually misquote the notion of "the non-existance of suger "rushes" and "crashes" in healthy individuals". The myth referred to in the opening section is that "after eating a high carbohydrate meal of sugary snack, the level of sugar in the blood rises rapidly, sending rushes of glucose to the brain. This provides it with a temporary boost of power, but is swiftly followed by a sugar carsh and a dip in mental enegy".

I am not sure I have EVER made such a claim that sugar rushes lead to mental boost! The article does note "a small amount of carbohydrate can improve memory function" and hey, I advocate low carb (through no grains or potatoes), not zero carb. The author then notes the importance of the GI of food. Now it is worrying that he never actually mentions glycemic load in the article which anyone familiar with nutrition would understand the significance superior of. However, he goes on to discuss ghrelin which affects reaction speed and is produced when you are hungry. He notes that "eating fat or protein has no effect on ghrelin levels, but carbohydrates suppress its production". He then quotes one researcher who uses a nice paleo-type analogy "If you think about a cheetah - how it picks the prey and pursues it - it obviously does it when it's hungry. A hungry animal is much better at responding to visual and olefactory cues".

Now that to me is an article that seems to favour paleo eating. Thanks for the tip off.

In reply to Shani:

>>"There is, or have 30 years of studies into heart and circulatory desease actually gone straight in one ear through the empty space and out the other?"

>You are obviously unaware of some of the more recent research regarding fat and heart disease. You have Google and Medline so I will let you do your own legwork.

I think we can conclude the answer to my first question was yes. I am well aware of current thinking which is more nuanced than "fat bad" but the link between high fat diets, LDL/HDL ratios and heart desease is valid. As for the BMJ article I read it when it was published. I was not impressed, I didn't think it showed anything more than a stronger correlation between BMR and obeasity than between exercise and obeasity. It also showed that kids that want to be active will tend to be active even if restrained from exercise and that trying to get those that don't want to be active to do more is hard work. However a similar study published last month showed only 5% of 11 year old boys and 1% of 11 year old girls were doing 1 hours moderate exercise a day. Which puts the results of the previous study in a context where they were differentiating not between high and low exercisers but between low and very low exercisers.

BTW "running" for 30 minutes 3 times a week is not high intensity arobic exercise, running at high pace 3 times a week for 30 mins+ might be. By high pace I mean a level which requires concious effort to maintain the pace (not one where you can relax and "mull problems over") and has you out of breath for the whole run. You are obviously inumerate as well because your training session does not include 4.5 minutes work. It has 2 minutes of work, 2 minutes of active recovery and 2.5 minutes of inactive recovery. It also sounds very similar to something I used to call sprint drills (high knees (lift knees to horizontal or higher 1-2 per sec 15-20sec rest and repeat for 4 sets, walk back go again) and back flips (heal to @rse > 3 per secfor 15-20 rest for as long then go again) part to be precise to turn that into skiping would only require a rope). I would typicaly compleate that in the last 20 mins before a track race of < ~10 mins duration didn't bother with them for longer races as they didn't make a difference to performance. So you can see how it would obviously have me on the floor if I felt that to do that would improve my performance over something as easy as say a 3000m s/c less than 20 mins later.

Personaly I found that kind of session pointless even if carried on for a reasonable duration (say 15-20x200m with jog recovery), it had too much rest to be a power endurance work out but not enough to be a good sprint work out. I would never have called it "hard" certainly I would have never thought anything that light as equivelent to 5 miles at threshold pace. BTW do you want to explain why body builders limit carbs or shall I?

>I followed up your reference in New Scientist (Lovett 2007 New Scientist 2617 30). You actually misquote the notion of "the non-existance of suger "rushes" and "crashes" in healthy individuals". The myth referred to in the opening section is that "after eating a high carbohydrate meal of sugary snack, the level of sugar in the blood rises rapidly, sending rushes of glucose to the brain. This provides it with a temporary boost of power, but is swiftly followed by a sugar carsh and a dip in mental enegy".

Your discusion of this article brings us to the major problem with people reading primary literature without having a background in the subject. The long words get parroted back with no concept of the meaning they carry so I say eating high GI food does not lead to blood suger spike, the article says eating high GI food does not lead to a blood suger spike followed by an insulin crash (as is said in the very sentence you quote ie. "...blood suger rise rapidly......but is swiftly followed by a crash..." is discribed as a myth meaning quite clearly does not happen.This is stated explicitly in the following line and the origin of the myth (a diabeties test using high conc glucose solution, injecting the stuff into your blood stream almost literaly) is explained.

you did not claim that this mythical "sugar spike" boosts brain power but you have claimed repeatedly that eating a high GI meal causes a blood suger spike which promotes fat deposition and is then followed by a "crash" causing hunger and overeating. The article clearly and repeatedly states that this does not happen and that blood glucose is tightly regulated.

GI is then use quite correctly to describe the rate at which different meals make glucose accesable and used as an experimental perameter. We then see two results atributable to carbs one which is then demonstrated to be an artifact due to cortisol levels produced by the experiment. i.e. the memory results are shown to be due to differences in cortisol production rather than carb consumption and that cortisol (which up regulates the metabolism) is shown to be related to high glucose reserves. starved has low reserved, low GI has reserves but they have yet to register, high GI has registered reserves so guns the engine more in response to stress. The other result (reaction times) is then speculativly linked to a secondary effect of ghrelin, which has the primary effect of PROMOTING hunger and is SUPRESSED by carbs but NOT by fat or protein. ie. If you are hungery due to ghrelin production and you eat high fat/high protein/low carb you will still be hungry after the meal. In which case the only reason you are not perminatly hungry is that gherlin is not the only regulator of hunger. This is then given a fairly typical meaningless psudo-evolutionary explination which you then pick up on becuase it fits your quack fad of preference. The evedence doesn't back paleo at all, it blows the rational for it out of the water, if the suger spike doesn't occur then the rest is rubish.

In reply to Paul Atkinson: good post however asking Shani to be rational or even to understand a good secondary article is too much to hope for (see above).

In reply to davidwright:

>"If you are hungery due to ghrelin production and you eat high fat/high protein/low carb you will still be hungry after the meal. "

Erm - the article only said that grehlin was produced when you were hungry. There is nothing to suggest that it causes hunger as your statemment above implies.

You really have misread the article.

In reply to nikinko:


I'm no expert, but I remember how long Scottish winter climbing trips (sleeping out various nights) used to reduce us to living skeletons. Our only problem was loading up fat (and fluids, obviously) for the next trip. After years and years of this "punishment" I got the impression my body had learned to burn fat better than before (I never felt hungry, even for days on end).

So my advice is concentrate on getting really fit with lots of long hard exercise - concentrate on achieving things (and enjoying yourself) rather than losing weight.

In reply to Shani:

No the article is very clear grehlin is a triger for hunger. That is certainly how I read it at first sight and is how the article reads to me. though I suspect I have rather more background in how a hormone like grehlin would affect a nervous response like hunger. Also see the very clear explination in this months scentific american if you are in any doubt. Is this the only thing that you can say on the matter? BTW you still have to answer the questions I posed about insulins action and explain why body buliders limit carbs (which has nothing to do with fat levels).

In reply to nikinko:
Just do more, I ran 90 miles in 8 days and lost 7 lb.
Easy!!
Have fun .

In reply to davidwright:

Just been reading about grehlin. You are right, it does trigger appetite.

In reply to timo.t: how do i lose weight i need some help

In reply to nikinko:

Just get out in the hills. A few good winter routes and staying in un manned huts with just porridge and couscous to eat and I promise you will shed a few kilos. Don't put off climbing because you think you are too fat. I have never stopped climbing whether I was too skinny or too fat. At the moment I am dragging an extra 10 kilos but I look at it as my security reserve. And if a boy tells you you are too fat, dump him. There are others out there who will like you as you are.

In reply to davidwright: It appears that there are some people here with serious knowledge. Execllent.
Here's a question for you...

I was running today, and some skinny runt ran past me at double speed.
The only reason I run is to try and keep me weight down, and that means burning calories. So I was thinking, if I followed this bloke, would I burn more calories?

From school physics, I seem to remember energy is mass x distance. So if I walk, jog or sprint let's say 5km, I still carry my weight for 5km, i.e. same amount of energy (and therefore calories). Is this right?

I realise it would be better to run if you were doing a fixed time, but for a fixed distance does it matter how fast you go? It doesn't seem right?

In reply to Nj: My bro is a semi pro athlete and when goes fat burning, he measures his heart rate while cycling to check it stays low. He doesn't want to raise it too high or he'll be doing a cardio-vascular workout. He reckons that as a rule of thumb, if you can talk while cycling or running then you're at fat burning pace. He has loads of formulas and calculations to be much more exact, but I just work off this rule of thumb.

In reply to Nj:

You're right. Once you get up to speed you don't use any energy staying at that speed. Assuming of course you're spherical & 'running' in a vacuum.

What? You're not ? Weird!

In reply to Nj: yes thats right. Distance run is the main determinate of energy used so the rules of thumb ignore speed. The 100 kcal/mile rule is quite good at giving an idea of extra energy used. If the run is done fast you need a higher power output so it feels harder and the energy systems used are different but this makes little difference to the overall impact to the long term change in body fat. i.e. if you run faster you burn more carbs and less fat but you then burn the fat latter because you don't have the carbs and are storing what you do have against the possibility of another long hard run.

In reply to nikinko: Cheers guys, good answers.

In reply to i.munro: lol

In reply to nikinko:
Too complex to describe in detail here, Nikinko, but you have achieved the first step - asking for help.
The second step is simple to read but may be difficult to achieve;

Eat Less and Do More!

Don't starve until you feel ill, but switch to the obvious low fat foods - veg, fruit etc.
Exercise four or five times a week, no more. Exercise at a level that makes you perspire but at which you feel you can carry on for a time, perhaps up to an hour with practice.
Keep at this regime and tailor it to suit you but don't expect miracles or a fast result.
Remember........

Eat Less and Do More!

Good Luck

In reply to nikinko:

I'm no professional in this area, but I used to be obsessed with fitness and getting ripped so know a fair bit of stuff abnout it. Not all my suggestions will agree with the text books but they work (at least for me!)

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's eating fat that makes most overweight people that way. Most people who are overweight get that way through eating too mnay carbs (i.e. sugars) rather than fat. A healthy diet will contain a significant proportion of fat (ideally unsaturated "healthy fats" like olove oil, nuts etc etc). Make sure you get balance - most importantly aim for lots iof lean proteins and fibre, that'll fill you up so you don't want lots of sugars etc...basic stuff really bu true.

There are a few tricks that can help:

Aim for 60 mins low intensity cardio/aerobic exercise a day (i.e. walking to/from work). You don't need to be even out of breath to burn fat. About an hour before this exercise drink strong black coffee or another caffeine source, as caffeine has been shown to "mobilise" fats into the systyem so that they are burned more efficiently for energy during exercise.

Not sure if any of that will help - just my thoughts on the subject...

Good luck...