Let's talk about fat.

[Inkachu]

I think I've gained and lost the same flippin' pound about a thousand times. Just get OFF of me!

 

[bhsmte]

Okay....so I'm understanding correctly.

What the "myth" that surrounds all of this seems to be is that this sort of training is for body building and gains.....but, what I've recently been reading is....this is the best sort of training for all of us to do on a regular basis (regular being once each week).

I've been sort of conditioned to believe (as I think most of us have) is that cardio exercise causes weight LOSS (so that's what we're *supposed to do*, if we want to get smaller) and the above causes weight gain (so...we avoid this variety of training). It may cause initial weight gain (since muscle weighs more than fat).....but this training may also increase fat burn (since there is greater muscle mass).

Ok, let try to explain from a human physiology stand point.

Any good exercise regime, includes; cardiovascular training (endurance activities) and resistance training (lifting weights). Both provide the balance you need, to be as healthy physically as possible.

How does cardiovascular (endurance training) positively impact the human body:

-Increases the strength and efficiency of the heart muscle
-Lowers blood pressure
-Increases elasticity of blood vessels for better oxygen delivery
-Improves the capability of the lungs to absorb oxygen and get rid of CO2
-Increases enzymes in muscle cells to better utilize oxygen for energy
-Increases glycogen stores in the muscles and liver, so your body burns more fat at rest
-Some will even say it increases brain function
-Lowers stress levels
-Increases metabolism
-Increases insulin sensitivity (better able to balance blood sugar levels)
-Weight bearing activity improves bone density

I could go on about other benefits, but that is enough.

What does resistance training do?

-Increases muscle mass
-Improves the efficiency of the nerve/muscle connection
-Protects joints and bone from injury
-Increases metabolism, because of increased muscle mass
-Can improve posture

All in all, cardio activities should be done 4-5 days a week, for 30 min or so at 70-80% of your max heart rate and weight training should be done 2-3 days per week and utilize exercises that work all the major muscle groups. This of course, would be for a healthy person, that has clearance from their doctor.

Regarding weight gain with resistance training; yes, muscle is 70% water and is denser and heavier than fat. If one adds muscle and does not lose fat, they will indeed gain weight. But, if someone is overweight and working out enough, the fat loss will likely exceed any muscle weight gains, depending on how hard one is performing resistance training etc..

For women, their is this fear that they will become bulky and add a whole bunch of muscle, but this is not the case. The hormone difference in women, does not allow the same amount of muscle gain, that males achieve through weight training. Women tend to get stronger, with minimal noticeable size differences in the muscle, compared to men.

 

[mkgal1]

Thanks so much for explaining all of that Bhsmte. The part about women being fearful of becoming too bulky is exactly one myth that I think needs to be done away with. It's even difficult for a lot of men to get bulky, because of their natural body frame. I've read that it's, IIRC, only about 3% of men that *can* get bulked up (naturally)....the rest use artificial means to get there (at a big expense of their health).

I'm glad this is also getting out there about low-fat vs low-carb diets....I know this is true for me:

Low-Carb Wins Another Battle in the Diet Wars | TakePart

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks so much for explaining all of that Bhsmte. The part about women being fearful of becoming too bulky is exactly one myth that I think needs to be done away with. It's even difficult for a lot of men to get bulky, because of their natural body frame. I've read that it's, IIRC, only about 3% of men that *can* get bulked up (naturally)....the rest use artificial means to get there (at a big expense of their health).

I'm glad this is also getting out there about low-fat vs low-carb diets....I know this is true for me:

Low-Carb Wins Another Battle in the Diet Wars | TakePart

If I discussed all the myths regarding exercise, dieting and fat loss out in the public, we would be here forever.

All I can say is, do research from credible sources because there is a lot of information out there, that is bogus.

On low carb diets, they do work well for those who are sedentary or of moderate levels of physical activity. For people who have a higher level of physical activity, low carb diets would not supply the proper level of fuel required to sustain a more high level exercise regime. With that said, that would only impact, a small percentage of the population.

 

[mkgal1]

Low carb really seems to be the way of eating my body best responds to. My blood work, and endurance and strength levels during exercise have improved.

I'm not so sure about it only being for the sedentary or moderate levels of activity. The question was asked in this interview about low-carb athletes (endurance runners and cyclists, specifically)

Dr. Volek: Mainly runners, actually. My research team studied runners at the Western States 100 last year. The Western States 100-Mile Endurance Run is the world’s oldest and most prestigious 100-mile trail race. Starting in Squaw Valley California near the site of the 1960 Winter Olympics and ending 100.2 miles later in Auburn, California, Western States. There were several athletes restricting carbohydrates to some extent. In fact, the guy who won the race, (Timothy Olson), was a self-proclaimed low-carb athlete. He not only won, but he set the course record.~Compelling Q & A with Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, the Nation’s Leading Low-Carb Expert & Scientific Researcher « Competition Nutrition Now « True Health Unlimited

This book was also mentioned in that interview:

 

[bhsmte]

Low carb really seems to be the way of eating my body best responds to. My blood work, and endurance and strength levels during exercise have improved.

I'm not so sure about it only being for the sedentary or moderate levels of activity. The question was asked in this interview about low-carb athletes (endurance runners and cyclists, specifically)



This book was also mentioned in that interview:

Significant debate on low carb diets for those who perform higher intensity endurance activities. Much work has to be done, to have a better picture of the impact on performance. Some studies have been done, but some of those studies, have been poorly designed.

 

[LilLamb219]

How low carb are you talking? Is it low or just reduced from what you were used to?

My daughter ran cross country in high school and before every meet they would have a Pasta Party to load up on carbs.

That's the way to do it. Carb up before the workout and then proteins for repair afterward.

I used to cycle and I felt that it was healthy for me to do it that way, carbs before and proteins after.

Low carb really seems to be the way of eating my body best responds to. My blood work, and endurance and strength levels during exercise have improved.

I'm not so sure about it only being for the sedentary or moderate levels of activity. The question was asked in this interview about low-carb athletes (endurance runners and cyclists, specifically)



This book was also mentioned in that interview:

 

[Hetta]

My 18 year old son used to run cross country and play soccer and he would have to carb load for energy. He doesn't run now, but he's trying to bulk up with muscle and that's not as easy - as he has found.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a 14 year old who struggles to gain weight. He won't believe he's lucky to be lighter than average, even though the doctor told him so.

 

[bhsmte]

How low carb are you talking? Is it low or just reduced from what you were used to?

My daughter ran cross country in high school and before every meet they would have a Pasta Party to load up on carbs.

That's the way to do it. Carb up before the workout and then proteins for repair afterward.

I used to cycle and I felt that it was healthy for me to do it that way, carbs before and proteins after.

I have a graduate degree in physiology and when I went to school, this is what was taught and all the research in regards to exercise performance, backed it up.

Today, there does appear to be some debate, as to whether low carb diets (50 grams or so), which is much much lower than the typical 400-600 grams of complex carbs, that have been promoted to endurance athletes until now are best.

The theory of low carb diets is; your body will adapt to the lower carb, higher fat intake and be able to oxidize a higher percentage of fat for fuel, during exercise. Ketosis, which is introduced with low enough carb diets, is basically the break down of fats for fuel, vs relying on readily available fuel from ingesting carbohydrates. There is no question, your body will likely adapt to better utilize fat for fuel if low carb diets are introduced, but the question is; can a high performance be maintained, without adequate glycogen stores, which are elevated with the proper level of carbohydrate consumption.

When athletes are tested in the lab, as exercise goes to a higher intensity, fat can not be utilized quickly enough to supply the energy required to maintain the activity and that is when more easily utilized glycogen stores become important.

Still much work to be done on the studies, to see whether low carb diets, can maintain high levels of performance, for athletes that push themselves to high levels.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I can't believe I never saw this thread until now. Subscribing, eagerly.

My husband and I are both diabetic. Obesity is the single biggest risk factor, and we do have that problem, but then the other big risk factor is genetics. Both of us have a heavy family history of it, no pun intended. Our doctor tells us that people with the family history who are overweight will more likely develop it sooner rather than later, while people with the family history who are not overweight will more likely develop it later rather than sooner. Either way, we would eventually have ended up diabetic.

For being opposite sex, we have a startlingly similar body type. We're all gut, no butt, long-bodied and short legged. Our nutritionist tells us that's pretty much the classic body type for a diabetic.

My husband doesn't, but I have people in my family who are also like me, prone to obesity no matter what. Some have had bariatric surgery. I am *just under* the guidelines to qualify for that. My blood pressure and cholesterol are low, although I am not taking medication for either. It used to make me angry, but now it just makes me laugh, when I encounter a medical professional who doesn't believe me, and assumes because I am the size I am, I must have high blood pressure and cholesterol. Then they run the tests or look at my chart, and it's the startled looks on their faces that makes me laugh. My A1C is coming down, largely (again, no pun intended) because I am more faithful about remembering to take my insulin. It is now the only medication I take every day.

I'm stalled in losing weight. I am the lowest I've weighed in almost 30 years, but I'm not getting any lower, even though I'm still in the obese category. I'm stuck, and that's frustrating me. Of course, one factor is that I have a physical disability which interferes with getting enough exercise. I have a strong cardiovascular system, but a weak musculoskeletal system. In short, I can't move my body hard enough to get my heart rate going.

But to the doctor who asked me, "Have you tried losing weight, so you don't have to take insulin anymore?" I say....

Well, no I don't say. On this site, I can't.

 

[bhsmte]

I can't believe I never saw this thread until now. Subscribing, eagerly.

My husband and I are both diabetic. Obesity is the single biggest risk factor, and we do have that problem, but then the other big risk factor is genetics. Both of us have a heavy family history of it, no pun intended. Our doctor tells us that people with the family history who are overweight will more likely develop it sooner rather than later, while people with the family history who are not overweight will more likely develop it later rather than sooner. Either way, we would eventually have ended up diabetic.

For being opposite sex, we have a startlingly similar body type. We're all gut, no butt, long-bodied and short legged. Our nutritionist tells us that's pretty much the classic body type for a diabetic.

My husband doesn't, but I have people in my family who are also like me, prone to obesity no matter what. Some have had bariatric surgery. I am *just under* the guidelines to qualify for that. My blood pressure and cholesterol are low, although I am not taking medication for either. It used to make me angry, but now it just makes me laugh, when I encounter a medical professional who doesn't believe me, and assumes because I am the size I am, I must have high blood pressure and cholesterol. Then they run the tests or look at my chart, and it's the startled looks on their faces that makes me laugh. My A1C is coming down, largely (again, no pun intended) because I am more faithful about remembering to take my insulin. It is now the only medication I take every day.

I'm stalled in losing weight. I am the lowest I've weighed in almost 30 years, but I'm not getting any lower, even though I'm still in the obese category. I'm stuck, and that's frustrating me. Of course, one factor is that I have a physical disability which interferes with getting enough exercise. I have a strong cardiovascular system, but a weak musculoskeletal system. In short, I can't move my body hard enough to get my heart rate going.

But to the doctor who asked me, "Have you tried losing weight, so you don't have to take insulin anymore?" I say....

Well, no I don't say. On this site, I can't.

To determine whether your obesity if genetically driven, would mean you would need to rule out lifestyle as a factor and most people who are obese, are because of lifestyle, as opposed to genetics.

Obesity has climbed dramatically in the United States in the last 30 years and genetics does not change that quickly, but lifestyles can change.

Also, you do have the classic body style of someone who lacks sensitivity to insulin, with the extra fat being stored in the mid section.

You have a disadvantage if you can not exercise, because there are so many positive physiological adaptations that come from continuous exercise, they are too long to list. Maybe there are ways to work through that, but without exercise, what you eat and how much you eat, becomes even more critical.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

That's true. When people say obesity runs in their family, it's hard to know whether it's the genetics or the lifestyle that's being passed along. I was overfed as a baby by a young mother who didn't know better because she thought being hungry was the only reason a baby ever cries. It didn't occur to her that I might actually be too full and have a tummy ache. I've seen pictures of myself at four or five months old. I was a roly-poly little thing--and I had been a preemie.

Later on, it was that scenario of, "You're not getting up from this table until you eat every bite on your plate," and relatives for whom food represents love. Therefore their greatest joy is cooking up huge banquets and watching everybody devour it. Some of my relatives were known for their food pushing. It was their identity.

My great-grandmother in particular was one. She protested if you stopped at a mere two or three plates full, and she watched you to make sure you took ample amounts of everything. If she saw that there was something you didn't have, she'd scoop it out onto your plate for you, paying no attention when you tried to tell her you already had some and finished it. Then my grandmother, her daughter, simply ignored you if she offered you food and you said no. She dished it out and served it to you anyway.

Strangely, neither one of them was obese. It was like they were so busy pumping food into everybody else, they weren't taking in the same amounts themselves.

Among my family, I have received very little backup and support in my efforts to lose weight. If we go out to a restaurant, or have a family get-together, all eyes are on my plate. If I eat anything at all, I'm told how fat I am and that I don't need that, but if I don't eat, I'm hounded until I do. My therapist told me the game here is to keep me fat so they can have something to look down on me for. As long as I'm fat and they're not, they're superior to me, but if I lose weight, they don't have that advantage anymore.

Which is why I no longer live anywhere near them, and haven't gone to a family get-together since 2007.

 

[keith99]

Ok, let try to explain from a human physiology stand point.

Any good exercise regime, includes; cardiovascular training (endurance activities) and resistance training (lifting weights). Both provide the balance you need, to be as healthy physically as possible.

How does cardiovascular (endurance training) positively impact the human body:

-Increases the strength and efficiency of the heart muscle
-Lowers blood pressure
-Increases elasticity of blood vessels for better oxygen delivery
-Improves the capability of the lungs to absorb oxygen and get rid of CO2
-Increases enzymes in muscle cells to better utilize oxygen for energy
-Increases glycogen stores in the muscles and liver, so your body burns more fat at rest
-Some will even say it increases brain function
-Lowers stress levels
-Increases metabolism
-Increases insulin sensitivity (better able to balance blood sugar levels)
-Weight bearing activity improves bone density

I could go on about other benefits, but that is enough.

What does resistance training do?

-Increases muscle mass
-Improves the efficiency of the nerve/muscle connection
-Protects joints and bone from injury
-Increases metabolism, because of increased muscle mass
-Can improve posture

All in all, cardio activities should be done 4-5 days a week, for 30 min or so at 70-80% of your max heart rate and weight training should be done 2-3 days per week and utilize exercises that work all the major muscle groups. This of course, would be for a healthy person, that has clearance from their doctor.

Regarding weight gain with resistance training; yes, muscle is 70% water and is denser and heavier than fat. If one adds muscle and does not lose fat, they will indeed gain weight. But, if someone is overweight and working out enough, the fat loss will likely exceed any muscle weight gains, depending on how hard one is performing resistance training etc..

For women, their is this fear that they will become bulky and add a whole bunch of muscle, but this is not the case. The hormone difference in women, does not allow the same amount of muscle gain, that males achieve through weight training. Women tend to get stronger, with minimal noticeable size differences in the muscle, compared to men.

You just reminded me of my college days. Every year I would come in a week early and include some heavy weight training. The most impressive was doing sets of 40 reps one leg at a time on the leg station of the universal gym at 440 lbs, the max for the station. Just about every year people would ask if I had lost weight. Every time I had put on 5-10 pounds but It seems I'd lost fat in bad places.

Also worth pointing out if one has the right facilities one can do resistance training as cardio. The water polo team would do that regularly. a 10-12 station circuit with 1 minute per station. One would not do max weight but 80-90% of max was fairly common. It was a pretty decent cardio workout.

Of course in many commercial gyms such a workout is not possible unless they are 24 hour and you come in at 3 in the morning.

 

[mkgal1]

How low carb are you talking? Is it low or just reduced from what you were used to?

To be keto-adapted (where you're burning fat for fuel rather than carbs), that's less than 50 g of carbs per day.

I found this interview with Timothy Olsen (endurance runner):

After coming in sixth place in the 2011 Western States 100-mile Endurance Run when he went through an excruciating stretch of running that had him stop to go to the bathroom over 20 times towards the end of the race, Timothy knew he needed to make a change. So he cut the gluten and then most of the carbohydrates out of his diet that helped him experience some remarkable improvements in the stomach pain as well as in his training. When the 2012 Western States 100 rolled around in June 2012, Timothy was ready to take on this challenge of running such a long race in a mostly-ketogenic state. What happened? Well, Tim not only came in first place to win the race, but he did it in a record time of 14:46:44–21 minutes faster than the previous course best!~642: Ultramarathon Runner Timothy Olson Thrives On A Low-Carb Diet | The Livin La Vida Low-Carb Show

 

[bhsmte]

To be keto-adapted (where you're burning fat for fuel rather than carbs), that's less than 50 g of carbs per day.

I found this interview with Timothy Olsen (endurance runner):

I found that interesting as well and this guy clearly had an issue with gluten that was specific to him, but would not apply to others.

As I posted previously, there needs to be much more good scientific studies on this topic, for it to be accepted as an acceptable means for most athletes to utilize.

If you look at 99% percent of high end athletes, who perform high end endurance activities, they are not utilizing this low carb concept, because of the need to rely on glycogen stores for performing at near your maximum capacity for any period of time. Studies have proven, when exercise reaches closer to maximum, glycogen stores are the primary source of fuel and depletion of the same, causes significant performance issues.

This may sound crazy, but a guy running a 100 mile race, is obviously not running at near their maximum, because he could never maintain that type of activity for that long. It would make sense, that being in Ketosis and training your body to burn mostly fat during lower levels of exercise, would not hamper performance at working at lower levels of max. In realty, even people who are not on a low carb diet and who are highly trained, utilize more fat and retain the glycogen at lower exercise levels as well.

 

[mkgal1]

I found that interesting as well and this guy clearly had an issue with gluten that was specific to him, but would not apply to others.

With the way our wheat industry has changed our wheat--I don't believe *most* people ought to eat wheat. I've noticed a huge improvement in the health of my family since we've ditched wheat (and none of us test gluten intolerant or allergic to gluten).

As I posted previously, there needs to be much more good scientific studies on this topic, for it to be accepted as an acceptable means for most athletes to utilize.

If you look at 99% percent of high end athletes, who perform high end endurance activities, they are not utilizing this low carb concept, because of the need to rely on glycogen stores for performing at near your maximum capacity for any period of time. Studies have proven, when exercise reaches closer to maximum, glycogen stores are the primary source of fuel and depletion of the same, causes significant performance issues.

Personally....I'm not going to wait for studies to be completed (not that I'm an athlete....but in reference to low-carb diets in general). I'm currently doing just about the opposite of what I thought to be "healthy" (basically eating high fat.....eggs.....little vegetables/fruit....and as much as I hate how our animals are treated---meat). I've lost weight (when I couldn't lose a thing before for years---even when watching what I ate and journaling it....and exercising each day). I did discover I was deficient in several nutrients/vitamins/minerals (like iodine/vit D/B vitamins....off the top of my head)....I've lost that "carb fog"....and my energy and endurance level has increased. That's proof enough for me
I do think, though, that there's no "one-size-fits-all" when it comes to diet.

This may sound crazy, but a guy running a 100 mile race, is obviously not running at near their maximum, because he could never maintain that type of activity for that long. It would make sense, that being in Ketosis and training your body to burn mostly fat during lower levels of exercise, would not hamper performance at working at lower levels of max. In realty, even people who are not on a low carb diet and who are highly trained, utilize more fat and retain the glycogen at lower exercise levels as well.

No...that makes sense (not crazy). A person can't "endure" at their maximum rate....I'm getting that.

Is that because of their muscle mass that the people that aren't on a low carb diet utilize more fat and retain the glycogen at lower exercise levels?

 

[faroukfarouk]

With the way our wheat industry has changed our wheat--I don't believe *most* people ought to eat wheat. I've noticed a huge improvement in the health of my family since we've ditched wheat (and none of us test gluten intolerant or allergic to gluten).



Personally....I'm not going to wait for studies to be completed (not that I'm an athlete....but in reference to low-carb diets in general). I'm currently doing just about the opposite of what I thought to be "healthy" (basically eating high fat.....eggs.....little vegetables/fruit....and as much as I hate how our animals are treated---meat). I've lost weight (when I couldn't lose a thing---even when watching what I ate and journaling it....and exercising each day). I did discover I was deficient in several nutrients/vitamins/minerals (like iodine/vit D/B vitamins....off the top of my head)....I've lost that "carb fog"....and my energy and endurance level has increased. That's proof enough for me
I do think, though, that there's no "one-size-fits-all" when it comes to diet.



No...that makes sense (not crazy). A person can't "endure" at their maximum rate....I'm getting that.

Is that because of their muscle mass that the people that aren't on a low carb diet utilize more fat and retain the glycogen at lower exercise levels?

So did you quit pizza altogether?

For some ppl, easier said that done, anyway...

 

[seeingeyes]

I'm stalled in losing weight. I am the lowest I've weighed in almost 30 years, but I'm not getting any lower, even though I'm still in the obese category. I'm stuck, and that's frustrating me.

How long have you been at the same weight? Try not to get too discouraged. Maintaining a new weight is an important skill. And you are not just "trying to lose weight" but trying to build new habits that result in a new normal for you.

Keep it up.

 

[mkgal1]

So did you quit pizza altogether?

For some ppl, easier said that done, anyway...

I have, but I do have a recipe for wheat-free pizza...made with a crust of cauliflower/Parmesan cheese/eggs.

I made lasagna the other night. Instead of noodles, I used sliced turkey breast (it was easier, and very good!).

ETA--I found the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Gtk067h5Y

 

[bhsmte]

With the way our wheat industry has changed our wheat--I don't believe *most* people ought to eat wheat. I've noticed a huge improvement in the health of my family since we've ditched wheat (and none of us test gluten intolerant or allergic to gluten).



Personally....I'm not going to wait for studies to be completed (not that I'm an athlete....but in reference to low-carb diets in general). I'm currently doing just about the opposite of what I thought to be "healthy" (basically eating high fat.....eggs.....little vegetables/fruit....and as much as I hate how our animals are treated---meat). I've lost weight (when I couldn't lose a thing before for years---even when watching what I ate and journaling it....and exercising each day). I did discover I was deficient in several nutrients/vitamins/minerals (like iodine/vit D/B vitamins....off the top of my head)....I've lost that "carb fog"....and my energy and endurance level has increased. That's proof enough for me
I do think, though, that there's no "one-size-fits-all" when it comes to diet.



No...that makes sense (not crazy). A person can't "endure" at their maximum rate....I'm getting that.

Is that because of their muscle mass that the people that aren't on a low carb diet utilize more fat and retain the glycogen at lower exercise levels?

The very fit person, will always burn more fat at lower exercise levels, so the glycogen can be saved for the more intense levels of exercise.

In essence, those who are very fit and consume a normal carbohydrate intake, are also burning more fat at rest, because the body wants to store sugar as glycogen. The low carb diet and ketosis, is basically just taking it to another level.