Cardio after Weights for faster fat loss?

Kieran_1991

Ive read about this in a magazine and it said doing 15 - 25 mins of steady
cardio after weights will result in faster fat loss is this true?

If its true should I keep doing the cardio (30 - 40 mins) I normally do before weights and should I keep doing this aswell as the cardio after the weights or should I stop doing the cardio before the weights?

Any advice would be really appreciated.

EileenG

Lift weights first. While you should definitely be well warmed up before you start lifting, that amount of cardio is likely to reduce the intensity you can bring to your lifting. When you are finished, you can do some extra cardio to burn some more fat.

Will Heffernan

Kieran_1991 wrote: »

Ive read about this in a magazine and it said doing 15 - 25 mins of steady
cardio after weights will result in faster fat loss is this true?

As per usual...explain?

Are you saying that cardio after weights leads to increased fat loss as in either the post session cardio improves fat loss from the weights or that the weights makes post session cardio more effective? Or are you saying something completely different?

If its true should I keep doing the cardio (30 - 40 mins) I normally do before weights and should I keep doing this aswell as the cardio after the weights or should I stop doing the cardio before the weights?

Now we're getting somewhere...are you asking if it is best to do 30-40 minutes of cardio before or after training?

Any advice would be really appreciated.

Honestly it doesn't matter. Because if you are doing 30-40 minutes of cardio before or after 'weights' then your weight training is not of any significant intensity where the cardio will actually impact your weight training or vice versa. So simply pick whichever suits you best because in your case it really doesn't make any difference.

Patdusty2010

Do HIIT training for fat loss thats all you need to know.

Will Heffernan

Patdusty2010 wrote: »

Do HIIT training for fat loss thats all you need to know.

When exactly?

I think the op might actually need to know a little more than that.

TerrorFirmer

I thought the general thinking was low intensity on weights days, and high intensity on rest days. Not entirely positive myself, so it would be interesting to find out more.

Mellor

Kieran_1991 wrote: »

Ive read about this in a magazine and it said doing 15 - 25 mins of steady
cardio after weights will result in faster fat loss is this true?

Doing it after is better as you can still lift at close to 100%

Will Heffernan wrote: »

When exactly?

I think the op might actually need to know a little more than that.

Wel doing it before weights is pretty much impossible, as you can't do both right

Dotcomdolly

My P.t rec'd doing a short cardio burst after weights.
e.g 4x100m sprint on tm with 60 sec breaks in between
or
3x200m runs at 6% incline with 60 sec breaks in between

Will Heffernan

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I thought the general thinking was low intensity on weights days, and high intensity on rest days. Not entirely positive myself, so it would be interesting to find out more.

The relevance is really dependent on the intensity and volume of the weight training. The fact that op stated that they were doing 30-40 prior to weight training currently would lead me to believe that the intensity and volume of their weight training is not of any significant intensity. So whether they do it before of after is niether here now there.

Perhaps even break it up....spin their wheels for 20 mins before and after.

What you are suggesting regarding low intensity cardio on weights days and higher intensity work on non weight training days certainly sounds like a winner to me.

Kieran_1991

First of all Thanks for all the replies.

I should of said this before but I do my cardio in the mornings and then I do my weight training in the evenings so Ill be able to to do the weights with no problems.

Should I stop doing the cardio on weight days and leave it until my rest days?

Will Heffernan

Kieran_1991 wrote: »

First of all Thanks for all the replies.

I should of said this before but I do my cardio in the mornings and then I do my weight training in the evenings so Ill be able to to do the weights with no problems.

That sound like a much better plan. What I'd do if you want to target fat loss is to do a 5 min warm up...the 10x30/30 intervals...that is go flat out for 30 seconds then easy for 30 seconds...then get off whatever piece of machinery you on and sit down....do ABSOLUTELY nothing for 5 minutes...then get back on and do 20-30 mins of low intensity cardio.

But shhhhh...don't tell anyone...otherwise everyone will have abs like yours.

Should I stop doing the cardio on weight days and leave it until my rest days?

That is really dependent on your recovery and how you feel...some people can handle heaps of volume...others can't.

Are you doing 'cardio' targetting fat loss or to improve your cardiovascular fitness?

It sound like you've a pretty good set up...I'd be doing the fat loss work out on the mornings that you do weights in the afternoon and then on your non weight training days do some harder 'fitness' type workout...that will improve you fitness and burn a heap of calories.

ducie

Patdusty2010 wrote: »

Do HIIT training for fat loss thats all you need to know.

Excuse my ignorance, but please explain what this is..

Jarren

http://www.hiitsource.com/getting-started/

someday2010

I do solely weights one day and HIIT/cardio the next day. Is it better to split the cradio and weights into different days?

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

I suppose you better PM him and ask him to remove his 'Thanks' from my post and delete his replies then?

Sorry to interfere with the normal running of things here where people just make assumptions and give out advice based on personal experience regardless of circumstance. I promise to try to be less constructive, thoughtful and inquisitive next time.

Will you're going to give me a coronary one of these days

Instead of throwing a strop (that's normally my job around here) answer me this:

Will Heffernan wrote:

What I'd do if you want to target fat loss is to do a 5 min warm up...the 10x30/30 intervals...that is go flat out for 30 seconds then easy for 30 seconds...then get off whatever piece of machinery you on and sit down....do ABSOLUTELY nothing for 5 minutes...then get back on and do 20-30 mins of low intensity cardio.

Why the low intensity cardio afterwards? Is that giving some advantage over just doing intervals alone? And if it is, what is that.

stinky eggs

Really interesting! What id usually do is 15 on bike, 3 sets of weights, 20 on treadmill, 3 sets of weights, 20 on rower, 3 sets of weights...

Rotated all the time rather than going with all cardio or weights.. might change it up a bit after reading this..

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

Will you're going to give me a coronary one of these days

Oh man...that would be awesome if I could do that to people over the internet...the electronic version of the Grim Reeper.

Instead of throwing a strop (that's normally my job around here) answer me this:

That is not me throwing a strop...I think you guys misplace me being upset with me thinking I'm being HYSTERICALLY funny...I think it might only be me that is laughing though.

Why the low intensity cardio afterwards? Is that giving some advantage over just doing intervals alone? And if it is, what is that.

I'll explain it again...and if there isn't enough detail I'll provide more. You do your warm up as normal...we all know what that's for...just getting the motor running...then we are doing the 30/30 intervals...as a guideline I try to go hard enough so as to be in no doubt that there's a chance I could possibly die doing them...and that if I am in a commercial gym people would not be on any machine either side of me as I sucked and blowed like a hoover...the point of these intervals is to give your body a massive kick in it's fat hole and to cause your adrenaline and noradrenaline levels to freak out and mobilise the fat out of your fat cells....your body basically doesn't know whether it is coming or going and is getting geared up for anything...30 seconds of you attempting to make your heart and lungs fly out of your chest then 30 seconds of doing next to nothing...then you take a 5 minute rest and do absolutely nothing...all that mobilised fat squished out of your fat cells enters your blood stream and you jump back on the whatever piece of equipment you are using and spend the next 20....30...40 minutes using your aerobic system to burn up all that fatty goodness that has left your ass and entered your blood stream only to get burned up in your muscles.

If you want to be really clever you can wait a bit and have a protein only meal then a few hours later resume normal service as far as your diet is concerned.

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

That is not me throwing a strop...I think you guys misplace me being upset with me thinking I'm being HYSTERICALLY funny...I think it might only be me that is laughing though.

Yeah I really don't get your humour

Will Heffernan wrote:

I'll explain it again...and if there isn't enough detail I'll provide more.

I like the sciency stuff, do share

Will Heffernan wrote:

You do your warm up as normal...then we are doing the 30/30 intervals...as a guideline I try to go hard enough so as to be in no doubt that there's a chance I could possibly die doing them...the point of these intervals is to give your body a massive kick in it's fat hole and to cause your adrenaline and noradrenaline levels to freak out and mobilise the fat out of your fat cells....

Cool, I know that bit. Although usually you see a ratio of 2:1 for rest to work, like 1min walking, 30 sec sprinting. I say 'usually' because it's what my brain has registered most recently and I'm fairly sure I saw it written in a book last week.

Does it really make a difference what the times/ ratios are though?

Will Heffernan wrote:

then you take a 5 minute rest and do absolutely nothing...all that mobilised fat squished out of your fat cells enters your blood stream and you jump back on the whatever piece of equipment you are using and spend the next 20....30...40 minutes using your aerobic system to burn up all that fatty goodness that has left your ass and entered your blood stream only to get burned up in your muscles.

This bit is new to me - I've never heard someone advocating that before but it's really interesting. Is this something you conjured up yourself or is there any literature on it?

Will Heffernan wrote:

If you want to be really clever you can wait a bit and have a protein only meal then a few hours later resume normal service as far as your diet is concerned.

Why? Insulin maintenance? Anabolism? Encourage further fat metabolism? Appetite suppression? And why?

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

Yeah I really don't get your humour

That's cool...I don't get boards. I get the weirdest PM's...my favourites are the ones along the lines of...'really enjoy your posts...but could never actually say that ofcourse' or the ones where people ask me questions but won't post them because they don't want their trainer/coach to see or other stuff similar.

Like in this post...someone feels like they need to come along and 'school me' on the internet...to put me in my place...I think that is so weird. People want to spend more time telling me to shut up or that I am mean or whatever...it's weird...like I said I really don't get how this place works. Never have and maybe I never will.

I think I need to put a disclaimer on every post...*the following post is not to be taken internally...or something like that.

Any way...maybe I should try and be less funny...or just post like I am a public servant or something so nothing can ever be misconstrued or misunderstood.

I like the sciency stuff, do share

Me too...what do you want to know?

Cool, I know that bit. Although usually you see a ratio of 2:1 for rest to work, like 1min walking, 30 sec sprinting. I say 'usually' because it's what my brain has registered most recently and I'm fairly sure I saw it written in a book last week.

I like to get the pain over faster.

Does it really make a difference what the times/ ratios are though?

Yes...leave it too long and you're not achieving the same effect.

This bit is new to me - I've never heard someone advocating that before but it's really interesting. Is this something you conjured up yourself or is there any literature on it?

Plenty of literature.

Why? Insulin maintenance? Anabolism? Encourage further fat metabolism? Appetite suppression? And why?

Why...And Why...in the same sentence...you really want to know why don't you?

I can come back to this after I do my 'bit' on protein that I am working on...we can fight over protein first then fat loss afterwards.

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

That's cool...I don't get boards.

I've noticed

Like in this post...someone feels like they need to come along and 'school me' on the internet...to put me in my place...I think that is so weird. People want to spend more time telling me to shut up or that I am mean or whatever...it's weird...like I said I really don't get how this place works. Never have and maybe I never will.

Actually those posts are meant in the nicest possible way - honestly! You've got a lot of information in that big head of yours, it's fantastic that you share it, I think it's just the delivery that makes people edgy sometimes. Makes them edgy, gives me a coronary.

Any way...maybe I should try and be less funny...or just post like I am a public servant or something so nothing can ever be misconstrued or misunderstood.

If you posted like a public servant you'd hardly ever post at all. It would be too much hard work.

Plenty of literature.

Examples?

Why...And Why...in the same sentence...you really want to know why don't you?

Yes Why is the protein only meal so effective... And if it's any of the reasons I listed why is that the case. I won't really believe/accept something until I understand it. I'm a right pain in the arse during complicated movies.

I can come back to this after I do my 'bit' on protein that I am working on...we can fight over protein first then fat loss afterwards.

Please do, or even address the protein-only meal after intervals for fat-loss thingy in your protein bit.

I have quite a long list of things I want to ask you about come to think of it...

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

I've noticed

Shhh...I don't think anyone else has.

Actually those posts are meant in the nicest possible way - honestly!

Wasn't singling anyone out...seem to get those constantly.

You've got a lot of information in that big head of yours, it's fantastic that you share it, I think it's just the delivery that makes people edgy sometimes. Makes them edgy, gives me a coronary.

Edgy? What are you all on medication or something? Edgy? Seriously? Makes me wonder how you guys get along in society...I will have to venture into society at some stage and see how people interact. When someone is in the gym and asks something stupid...my first response is generally the same...'You're an idiot'...then after that...tell them in detail why they are an idiot.

If you posted like a public servant you'd hardly ever post at all. It would be too much hard work.

Gives me a headache even thinking about it.

Examples?

Will put these on the long finger but will dig them out.

Yes Why is the protein only meal so effective... And if it's any of the reasons I listed why is that the case. I won't really believe/accept something until I understand it. I'm a right pain in the arse during complicated movies.

I'll skip the middle bit where I explain it and just dig these out for you as well.

Please do, or even address the protein-only meal after intervals for fat-loss thingy in your protein bit.

I want to try and give as much separation between topics to fight over as possible.

I have quite a long list of things I want to ask you about come to think of it...

I told you....if you keep asking how babies are made I am going to block you.

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Will put these on the long finger but will dig them out.

Do. Is it the same stuff that Lyle McDonald references? I like him, his stuff is sciencey enough to explain things properly but dumbed down enough not to make me feel I'm an idiot.

I'll skip the middle bit where I explain it and just dig these out for you as well.

Do, but if I don't understand stuff I'm just going to ask you about it anyway.

I told you....if you keep asking how babies are made I am going to block you.

It's like interval training though right? Isn't it? Dammit

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

Do. Is it the same stuff that Lyle McDonald references? I like him, his stuff is sciencey enough to explain things properly but dumbed down enough not to make me feel I'm an idiot.

Yeah...good thinking...go bug him...tell him that I sent you.

Do, but if I don't understand stuff I'm just going to ask you about it anyway.

That is cool.

It's like interval training though right? Isn't it? Dammit

I told you...you're not ready. My posting gives you a coronary...imagine what.....actually...I better just leave that.

g'em

Will I have a question - with interval training, the increased metabolic function (is that the right term? The afterburn?) that you get following intervals, is that from the increase in EPOC or is it because the intervals promote that fat-metabolising hormonal response?

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

Will I have a question - with interval training, the increased metabolic function (is that the right term? The afterburn?) that you get following intervals, is that from the increase in EPOC or is it because the intervals promote that fat-metabolising hormonal response?

Forget the first...over rated and over stated and the second is marginal at best.






You want data now don't you? Every question you ask is a trick question...damn you woman.

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Forget the first...over rated and over stated and the second is marginal at best.

Thought so. So what is it? What makes interval training so fantastic?

You want data now don't you? Every question you ask is a trick question...damn you woman.

Yes please

r3nu4l

Will, thank you for the informative posts and for explaining your 'humour'! I've honestly thought that you are someone who really, really knows their stuff but is way too tetchy...looks like I've been misreading you. Apologies!

Now I have a question and it's a really basic question to which I think I know the answer but need to hear it from someone who knows what they are talking about.

So if I do 10 x30/30 HIIT on a bike let's say, then rest for 5 minutes as you've indicated: you recommend getting back on and doing cardio for X amount of time.

Could I hit the weights instead? That would also burn fat.

Now I'm thinking that the answer is 'No' because my body should be too wrecked after the HIIT so as to make it almost impossible for me to lift any weight. Is that right?

On the other hand, doing a freeweight workout with more reps and lower weight rather than fewer reps with more weight would burn the fat too, right?

Any advice on that one?

someday2010

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Oh man...that would be awesome if I could do that to people over the internet...the electronic version of the Grim Reeper.


That is not me throwing a strop...I think you guys misplace me being upset with me thinking I'm being HYSTERICALLY funny...I think it might only be me that is laughing though.


I'll explain it again...and if there isn't enough detail I'll provide more. You do your warm up as normal...we all know what that's for...just getting the motor running...then we are doing the 30/30 intervals...as a guideline I try to go hard enough so as to be in no doubt that there's a chance I could possibly die doing them...and that if I am in a commercial gym people would not be on any machine either side of me as I sucked and blowed like a hoover...the point of these intervals is to give your body a massive kick in it's fat hole and to cause your adrenaline and noradrenaline levels to freak out and mobilise the fat out of your fat cells....your body basically doesn't know whether it is coming or going and is getting geared up for anything...30 seconds of you attempting to make your heart and lungs fly out of your chest then 30 seconds of doing next to nothing...then you take a 5 minute rest and do absolutely nothing...all that mobilised fat squished out of your fat cells enters your blood stream and you jump back on the whatever piece of equipment you are using and spend the next 20....30...40 minutes using your aerobic system to burn up all that fatty goodness that has left your ass and entered your blood stream only to get burned up in your muscles.

If you want to be really clever you can wait a bit and have a protein only meal then a few hours later resume normal service as far as your diet is concerned.

Is this scientifically correct or just an opinion?

Regarding being really clever and eating no carbs for a few hours will this not cause loads of muscle loss as the muscle Eat them selves for glycogen??

cc87

someday2010 wrote: »

Is this scientifically correct or just an opinion?

Regarding being really clever and eating no carbs for a few hours will this not cause loads of muscle loss as the muscle Eat them selves for glycogen??

Your fat stores will be used long before any muscle loss will occur.

Will Heffernan

someday2010 wrote: »

Is this scientifically correct or just an opinion?

LOL.

That is actually the funniest thing I've read all day. Unlike some of the health and fitness professionals and other posters here...when you see me post my 'opinion' I will state that...it will look like this...'In my opinion I think that bagels are awesome' otherwise you can take for granted that what I am saying is scientifically correct...even if you read for example in other threads that I am 'full of it' or what I am saying is 'rubbish' or that they stopped reading pages ago as I was told today that a personal trainer who posts here said in another thread...you can take as scientific fact that they say this because they are the ones that are full of it...have you read a post here where I've had to apologise for being wrong? No? Or seen one of these so called professionals show me the error of my ways? No? Don't worry...you won't see that happening here. I don't talk about things I don't understand.

So....yes...it is scientifically correct. Thanks for asking.

Regarding being really clever and eating no carbs for a few hours will this not cause loads of muscle loss as the muscle Eat them selves for glycogen??

No.

d'Oracle

someday2010 wrote: »

Is this scientifically correct or just an opinion?

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Will Heffernan

d'Oracle wrote: »

These things are not mutually exclusive.

In my opinion being scientifically correct is awesome...much like cinnamon bagels with peanut butter and strawberry jam

d'Oracle

Will Heffernan wrote: »

In my opinion being scientifically correct is awesome...much like cinnamon bagels with peanut butter and strawberry jam

I haven't had a bagel in ages.
More of a steamed turnip man.
And Yet I'm obese...go figure.

g'em

Will I need your brain. As devious as I may be with my loaded questions I'm too impatient to wait for you to get back to me with data so I've been stumbling through some stuff and I need to ask you more questions. One way or another I'm going to keep bugging you about this until I understand it, you get that right?

The protein only meal after doing intervals and steady state - I'm stuck on that bit for one. This study: Training with Low Muscle Glycogen Enhances Fat Metabolism in Well-Trained Cyclists suggests that fat oxidation is increased after training with low muscle glycogen, but I only have the abstract to go on so I don't understand why. Is that the reason for the protein only meal though? Because it encourages further fat oxidation after the intervals? Plus that study was done on trained athletes - does the same apply to us regular folk?

Secondly I'm still confused as to what it is that makes intervals so dang fantastic. Interval training increases EPOC but that has a negligible effect on post-exercise metabolic rate. Neither is it that intervals promote that fat-metabolising hormonal response, that's marginal according to you, fair enough. Does that include insulin though? Because that's what a lot of the interval-exercise studies seem to concentrate on - insulin sensitivity (both in an obese population at high risk of diabetes mellitus and a young population of normal BMI) and interval training improves insulin sensitivity. Other effects of intervals include changes in VO(2max), an increase of β-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (which I'm not even going to pretend to understand the biochemistry of, I just know it's involved in fat oxidisation and more of it means more oxidation) and an increase in GLUT4 (some transport protein that seems to be involved in insulin resistance when there's not a lot of it around?). But then some studies seem to say that all these results are no better than those elicited in regular endurance exercise.

So, why protein only after the intervals and what makes the intervals so dang fantastic. Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old... (God I love that movie).

the drifter

g'em wrote: »

e.

So, why protein only after the intervals and what makes the intervals so dang fantastic. Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old... (God I love that movie).

Yes please...i find it hard too follow some of the stuff ye talk about...it would be like me waffling on about fibre optics and tellecomms....can you break it down please Will for those of us who are not at your level of knowledge..

thanks...

Will Heffernan

g'em wrote: »

Will I need your brain.

That's what all the girls say.

As devious as I may be with my loaded questions I'm too impatient to wait for you to get back to me with data so I've been stumbling through some stuff and I need to ask you more questions. One way or another I'm going to keep bugging you about this until I understand it, you get that right?

That's also what all the girls say to me...any time I make a suggestion...they want data to back it up.

The protein only meal after doing intervals and steady state - I'm stuck on that bit for one. This study: Training with Low Muscle Glycogen Enhances Fat Metabolism in Well-Trained Cyclists suggests that fat oxidation is increased after training with low muscle glycogen, but I only have the abstract to go on so I don't understand why. Is that the reason for the protein only meal though? Because it encourages further fat oxidation after the intervals? Plus that study was done on trained athletes - does the same apply to us regular folk?

I love how people get 'hooked' on certain things... talk an inordinate amount of ****e about training and nutrition almost constantly...and people end up coming back with a question like you have...and I always end up thinking....of all the stuff I said...that's what you found interesting...really?

Secondly I'm still confused as to what it is that makes intervals so dang fantastic. Interval training increases EPOC but that has a negligible effect on post-exercise metabolic rate. Neither is it that intervals promote that fat-metabolising hormonal response, that's marginal according to you, fair enough. Does that include insulin though? Because that's what a lot of the interval-exercise studies seem to concentrate on - insulin sensitivity (both in an obese population at high risk of diabetes mellitus and a young population of normal BMI) and interval training improves insulin sensitivity. Other effects of intervals include changes in VO(2max), an increase of β-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (which I'm not even going to pretend to understand the biochemistry of, I just know it's involved in fat oxidisation and more of it means more oxidation) and an increase in GLUT4 (some transport protein that seems to be involved in insulin resistance when there's not a lot of it around?). But then some studies seem to say that all these results are no better than those elicited in regular endurance exercise.

I love this stuff...lets get stuck into it...I didn't really want to work today anyway...although I do need to go out and get milk for coffee...to do this properly...I'm going to need coffee.

So, why protein only after the intervals and what makes the intervals so dang fantastic. Now, explain it to me like I'm a four-year-old... (God I love that movie).

OK...I'm going to ignore all the other ****e going on and we can talk about this instead.

A few ground rules to start though...fresh post to come.

the drifter

excellent i shall get a coffe and look forward to reading this!

remember...dumb it down and stop confusing me :P

g'em

Will Heffernan wrote: »

That's also what all the girls say to me...any time I make a suggestion...they want data to back it up.

Nothing like a man with a big... um.. data set?

I love how people get 'hooked' on certain things... talk an inordinate amount of ****e about training and nutrition almost constantly...and people end up coming back with a question like you have...and I always end up thinking....of all the stuff I said...that's what you found interesting...really?

That's not the only interesting thing, it's just the thing I'm having most trouble understanding. And like I said, I have loooads of questions about other interesting things that have been touched on, it's just that you keep fobbing me off to go and talk about cinnamon bagels and then I get hungry and distracted too.

I love this stuff...lets get stuck into it...I didn't really want to work today anyway...although I do need to go out and get milk for coffee...to do this properly...I'm going to need coffee.

Good, me neither. Make it a big coffee, I want to abuse your brain for the next few hours.

A few ground rules to start though...fresh post to come.

That sounds suspiciously like gauntlet-laying-down-type words. Love it.

We Were Promised Jetpacks

On the protein after training and the intervals, I'd need to look over papers and what not to pluck out the sciency bits, but my take on it all in layman's terms for now is this:

Protein after training

-Post training, body is in a state of stress, returning to homeostatis, needs nutrients/food/energy
-Mainly carbs as post-workout meal leads to it gobbling up mainly glucose from same greedily, on its way back to homeostasis, with limited amounts taken from stored glycogen
-Mainly protein as post-workout meal leads to less readily available glucose from food -> body looks more to stored glycogen and adipose stores -> overall greater amounts of fat potentially burned

Intervals

-Simplistic explanation is that greater physical stress necessitates more energy in returning to homeostasis....guess what - during exercise you may use more ATP....but post-exercise you better believe you're going to be drawing more on those adipose stores....win!

g'em

We Were Promised Jetpacks wrote:

Protein after training

-Post training, body is in a state of stress, returning to homeostatis, needs nutrients/food/energy
-Mainly carbs as post-workout meal leads to it gobbling up mainly glucose from same greedily, on its way back to homeostasis, with limited amounts taken from stored glycogen
-Mainly protein as post-workout meal leads to less readily available glucose from food -> body looks more to stored glycogen and adipose stores -> overall greater amounts of fat potentially burned

But what about protein and some carbohydrates, which has been shown effective for protein initiation for recovery? Granted the goal is fat loss but you still want your body to be in a state of recovery following intense stress. Or is it simply that the role of carbohydrates post-exercise is over-stated specifically in a fat-loss context? Following that would the protein-only meal hold up for other goals?

We Were Promised Jetpacks wrote: »

Intervals

-Simplistic explanation is that greater physical stress necessitates more energy in returning to homeostasis....guess what - during exercise you may use more ATP....but post-exercise you better believe you're going to be drawing more on those adipose stores....win!

But how is 10 minutes of intervals a greater stress on the body than prolonged intense exercise? And if it isn't why choose intervals over another exercise? How is interval training using more ATP? And how will you draw more on the adipose stores? What is it about intervals that do that?

cmyk

g'em wrote: »

But how is 10 minutes of intervals a greater stress on the body than prolonged intense exercise? And if it isn't why choose intervals over another exercise? How is interval training using more ATP? And how will you draw more on the adipose stores? What is it about intervals that do that?

Looking forward to Will's answer on the whole thing too. If it's going to get down to the minute details I guess it would depend on the definition of 'intensity'. I'm not sure whether this is what you're saying g'em but in my mind it would be impossible to work at a high intensity for a prolonged 10 minutes? Edit: I know that you know this, so I think I'm taking that up wrong.

TheZ

Will do you have any views on brown fat tissue and activating it to burn glucose - I think there is a view is that if you expose yourself to cold temperatures you will activate it and lose weight without exercising or reducing calories

could we see new cold rooms in gyms that you just sit in and lose weight that way - sort of like a reverse of a sauna



http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1890175,00.html

"On the basis of animal models, researchers calculate that 50 g of brown fat — less than what the scientists in the current series of papers documented in their volunteers — could burn about 20% of an average person's daily caloric intake"

rubadub

Will Heffernan wrote: »

you can take for granted that what I am saying is scientifically correct.

But what if the science you read/believe is incorrect in the first place. There are so many conflicting studies out there how do you decide which is right/wrong? (that is not rhetorical, I really am interested in how you come to conclusions).

In many cases, especially with biology, I do not think there can always be such extreme cut & dry laws that you would see in mathematical theory. I read your comments on Einstein/thermodynamics in another thread and could not see how they could be applied to the particular topic (muscle gain & fat loss at the same time), having studied thermodynamics & used those laws for the last ~20 years I think they cannot be applied to biology like that.

-however I have dumbbed down those laws to a similar level in posts myself to try and explain calorie balance to people, but I know it is not an exact science. I have posted several statements which were mathematically incorrect in various threads, but were used to get a point across, and were good enough in that context. Explaining what calories really are might go over many peoples heads. In my work I also have to dumb things down to explain energy/power usage to clients and marketing people, and people are still saying "thats the dumbbed down version!?!, jesus, I don't want to see the complicated one". This also leaves me open to people twisting my "facts" and applying them to a totally different machine/scenario where a whole different set of physical laws and/or rules of thumb apply.

I would like to hear your answers to the bit in bold below, and if you have any studies or references to the issue of building muscle/losing fat at the same rate please link them.

rubadub wrote: »

I would not even mention "maintenance calories" as it just complicates things e.g. how do you arrive at a figure for this number, and how long a time are you talking about. If my maintenance intake is 2400kcal per day then it is 100kcal per hour and if I eat 200kcal in one hour and nothing else that day then was I in a deficit or surplus for that hour.

I would just simply say the question is can you gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, and by "the same time" I am not talking about some instantaneous moment -perhaps there is some mechanism which prevents this but at the same time for me would mean maybe in the same week -the frequency you often see recommended to weigh yourself.

I don't think anybody would doubt the fact a person could put on muscle and lose fat over a year, so when does it suddenly become and complete and utter impossibility? Could a person put on muscle and lose fat over 6months? what about 3 months? 1 week? 1 day?

If only beginners can do it, then you could say "the VAST MAJORITY of the population are able to put on muscle and lose fat at the same time." It also brings up the question of what is a beginner and when do you stop being one.

mushykeogh

g'em wrote: »

But how is 10 minutes of intervals a greater stress on the body than prolonged intense exercise?

I think physiologically you cant have a prolonged intensity bout that could match the intensity of the intervals. I mean if your exercising 30 mins plus non stop the energy suply is probably coming by about 70% aerobically. ATP is being provided by the mitochondrial processes, krebs cycle, electron transport chain. Requiring fuel substrates derived from muscle or circulation.
Intervals however really wallop the ATP- CP system because of the high intensity, substrates get depleted quickly, after a short recovery time atp cp can be pretty much regenerated and ready to be hammered again.

We Were Promised Jetpacks

g'em wrote: »

But what about protein and some carbohydrates, which has been shown effective for protein initiation for recovery? Granted the goal is fat loss but you still want your body to be in a state of recovery following intense stress. Or is it simply that the role of carbohydrates post-exercise is over-stated specifically in a fat-loss context? Following that would the protein-only meal hold up for other goals?


But how is 10 minutes of intervals a greater stress on the body than prolonged intense exercise? And if it isn't why choose intervals over another exercise? How is interval training using more ATP? And how will you draw more on the adipose stores? What is it about intervals that do that?

As I said, I’d really need to do some more reading, plan to do so at weekend...but here is my take.

I feel – and again need to back this up – that the whole protein versus carbohydrate versus protein + carbs after training...or supplement shake after training versus no supplement after training...or protein within a 30 minute window versus a 1 hour window versus a 90 minute window...is completely over-thought and overstated in importance, certainly from the point of view of the average trainee.

Reason for I say this is that these approaches seem to treat the body like it is a blank canvas..as in once you finish training your carb and protein stores are completely used up and you need to replenish to x degree - and I don’t believe the body works like that. I don’t think there is any trainee out there who will use up all their glycogen reserves or their protein stores to such an extent that they simply MUST adhere to these rules – or else suffer from a performance/fat loss perspective. Will the average person use up all their glycogen stores during an average training session (an hour in the gym with weights and cardio)? Won’t they simply just have enough glycogen and protein – stored, and in their diet – for sufficient recovery and repair? The answer has to be yes for the average person on an average diet. The average person (of average build) can store approx 350g of glycogen in their muscles – equal to 1400 calories*. How many people do you know can use up 1400 calories in a typical training session? Or even say 1000, for that matter? Ok, so some might, but they should quickly replenish their stores with a meal after training – regardless of the make-up of that meal.

What this all boils down to – and this is the case for all debates on this forum really – is that, in my opinion, if you have to test something under laboratory conditions to find out if a premise holds true or not (e.g. is a protein + carb drink/meal more optimal from a recovery perspective than a carb only meal/drink) then maybe it doesn’t matter all that much in reality anyway? Shouldn’t you be more focused on total calorie intake and expenditure if fat loss is your goal, as opposed to what shake or what combination of macro-nutrients you should be ingesting? I believe so, and I believe the results bear out in practice.

On the interval stuff, need to come back to this one later but in the meantime let’s go back to my lovely calories – interval training is more intense -> more intense = greater calorie burn -> greater calorie burn = greater fat loss...broadly speaking...


*http://www.healthline.com/hlbook/nut-carbohydrate-metabolism

AntiVirus

g'em wrote:

But how is 10 minutes of intervals a greater stress on the body than prolonged intense exercise?

I was thinking about this to and then I found this article which give's a little easy to understand explanation

http://www.ameinfo.com/121740.html

cmyk

AntiVirus wrote: »

I was thinking about this to and then I found this article which give's a little easy to understand explanation

http://www.ameinfo.com/121740.html

It doesn't explain why though.

Will Heffernan

cmyk wrote: »

It doesn't explain why though.

I can do that for you I might be a complete pain in the hole and have no manners...but I can actually answer that question.

Been busy today actually working and when I haven't been working I've been training....you'd be amazed at how many people want to train with me on days that I am only working on my defence

AntiVirus

cmyk wrote: »

It doesn't explain why though.

Yeah, on re-reading it it just says it does. It doesn't explain why, maybe no one knows exactly why but it has been proven to work.

Will Heffernan

Can I just say...before we get into this that 1. I am not a big fan of intervals for fat loss (and I will tell you why...so don't panic)...and 2. If you have anyone tell you that they do intervals for fat loss because of the 'afterburn' effect...or because of 'Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption' or EPOC for short...which in effect is the calories you burn after you finish exercising then you call tell them they're an idiot...I would say it....but then someone would make a post about how rude I am and how I have no manners...so it should be perfectly ok for you guys to say it...the reason you can say...'you're an idiot' is because if they even mention EPOC then they obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about

the drifter

if not intervals for fat loss Will then what?

also i agree to terms 1&2 listed above...:P