Losing belly quick

BigPecsPeter said:
The part after "because" is probably nonsense, but it is true that going for long brisk walks (3-3¼ mph or so) is going to simply burn more calories than most runs that your average plonker goes on. It's also more pleasant and a lifestyle that's easier to stick to, imo.
Click to expand...

I may stand corrected, but i was under the impression that your body isn't able to obtain energy sources from fat when working at a higher cardio vascular rate but can do so when the intensity of the exercise is less, say between 60% and 80% of maximum heart rate.
 
Begbie said:
You need to put more weight on!

I weigh 13.5 stone and consider myself skinny at 6ft and constantly told (mostly banter, and by fat ****s) that I am skinny. I do have a little fat around the stomach area but 10.5 is way too light for someone 6ft forget about looking skinny and go full alpha.
Click to expand...

I don't look skin and bone:

laAR5.jpg


But I have checked and 10.5st is what I come out at on different scales. My ribs are hidden.

Full Alpha needs to be done tbh, I agree! I need to figure something out and make the most of my exercise.
 
Dup said:
I don't look skin and bone:

laAR5.jpg


But I have checked and 10.5st is what I come out at on different scales. My ribs are hidden.

Full Alpha needs to be done tbh, I agree! I need to figure something out and make the most of my exercise.
Click to expand...

No... you do look skin and bone. ;) :D
 
Suarez7 said:
They must be taking the ****. At 6ft 2, 14.5 stone I'm far from skinny, I'm not aesthetic either. Around 203lbs at the moment, gonna cut to 185 soon.
Click to expand...

Nah I think I'm also too skinny, I could do with putting more weight on. I'll be around your weight early next year, doubtful I'll look fat in anyway though.

Been at 14st before and didn't look too fat unless the t-shirt came off.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
I may stand corrected, but i was under the impression that your body isn't able to obtain energy sources from fat when working at a higher cardio vascular rate but can do so when the intensity of the exercise is less, say between 60% and 80% of maximum heart rate.
Click to expand...

I think you're correct. I heard a similar thing a while back.
 
Admiral Huddy said:
I may stand corrected, but i was under the impression that your body isn't able to obtain energy sources from fat when working at a higher cardio vascular rate but can do so when the intensity of the exercise is less, say between 60% and 80% of maximum heart rate.
Click to expand...

Taken from elsewhere but sums it up pretty well based on what I've read:

You use both fat and carbohydrates for energy during exercise, with these two fuels providing that energy on a sliding scale. During exercise at a very low intensity (e.g., walking), fat accounts for most of the energy expenditure. As exercise intensity increases up to the lactate threshold (the exercise intensity that marks the transition between exercise that is almost purely aerobic and exercise that includes a significant anaerobic contribution; also considered the highest sustainable aerobic intensity), the contribution from fat decreases while the contribution from carbohydrates increases. When exercising just below the lactate threshold, you are using mostly carbohydrates. Once the intensity of exercise has risen above the lactate threshold, carbohydrates become the only fuel source.

If you exercise long enough (1.5–2 hours), your muscle carbohydrate (glycogen) content and blood glucose concentration become low. This metabolic state presents a threat to the muscles’ survival, since carbohydrates are muscles’ preferred fuel. When carbohydrates are not available, the muscles are forced to rely on fat as fuel.

Since more fat is used at low exercise intensities, people often assume that low-intensity exercise is best for burning fat, an idea that has given birth to the “fat-burning zone.” However, while only a small amount of fat is used when exercising just below the lactate threshold, the rate of caloric expenditure and the total number of calories expended are much greater than they are when exercising at a lower intensity, so the total amount of fat used is also greater.

For fat and weight loss, what matters most is the difference between the number of calories you expend and the number of calories you consume. Fat and weight loss is about burning lots of calories and cutting back on the number of calories consumed. For the purpose of losing weight, it matters little whether the calories burned during exercise come from fat or carbohydrates.
 
ricky1981 said:
Taken from elsewhere but sums it up pretty well based on what I've read:

You use both fat and carbohydrates for energy during exercise, with these two fuels providing that energy on a sliding scale. During exercise at a very low intensity (e.g., walking), fat accounts for most of the energy expenditure. As exercise intensity increases up to the lactate threshold (the exercise intensity that marks the transition between exercise that is almost purely aerobic and exercise that includes a significant anaerobic contribution; also considered the highest sustainable aerobic intensity), the contribution from fat decreases while the contribution from carbohydrates increases. When exercising just below the lactate threshold, you are using mostly carbohydrates. Once the intensity of exercise has risen above the lactate threshold, carbohydrates become the only fuel source.

If you exercise long enough (1.5–2 hours), your muscle carbohydrate (glycogen) content and blood glucose concentration become low. This metabolic state presents a threat to the muscles’ survival, since carbohydrates are muscles’ preferred fuel. When carbohydrates are not available, the muscles are forced to rely on fat as fuel.

Since more fat is used at low exercise intensities, people often assume that low-intensity exercise is best for burning fat, an idea that has given birth to the “fat-burning zone.” However, while only a small amount of fat is used when exercising just below the lactate threshold, the rate of caloric expenditure and the total number of calories expended are much greater than they are when exercising at a lower intensity, so the total amount of fat used is also greater.

For fat and weight loss, what matters most is the difference between the number of calories you expend and the number of calories you consume. Fat and weight loss is about burning lots of calories and cutting back on the number of calories consumed. For the purpose of losing weight, it matters little whether the calories burned during exercise come from fat or carbohydrates.
Click to expand...

I am no expert but this is what I have read as well, I guess the issue is that fat can not be converted by the body to usable energy quick enough.

My question though has always been if when you exercise hard enough to need to use the glycogen that is stored in your muscles and liver what happens when you stop?

Does the body then replace the used energy from your fat reserves or do you just feel hungry i.e your body is asking you to replace what has been used?
 
Back in December I was 16st 4. I took up running. I now weigh just under 14st and run 2 x 5K and 1 x 10K every week. I also swim twice a week.

A health scare got my backside into gear (admitted to hospital with abdominal pains and blood pressure of 200/123 just before Christmas). As a Dad I had to change.

It's been really hard work I kid you not + my mrs understands. Time is the biggest enemy I find. There's not enough of it.

One tip which works for me - consume half the calories you've burned after exercise. Someone may have already mentioned this. Your body will thank you for it :)
 
Domo said:
Back in December I was 16st 4. I took up running. I now weigh just under 14st and run 2 x 5K and 1 x 10K every week. I also swim twice a week.

A health scare got my backside into gear (admitted to hospital with abdominal pains and blood pressure of 200/123 just before Christmas). As a Dad I had to change.

It's been really hard work I kid you not + my mrs understands. Time is the biggest enemy I find. There's not enough of it.

One tip which works for me - consume half the calories you've burned after exercise. Someone may have already mentioned this. Your body will thank you for it :)
Click to expand...

Similar story to me, we had to move out of our house whilst it was rebuilt (badly damaged in earthquakes) and really let things go. At the same time our newborn was pretty ill so exercise and healthy living went out of the window.

Moved back in and was appalled when I jumped on the scales (96kg, BMI pushing 30) so I committed to going to the gym each day, slowly introduced running and some proper weights as well as eating sensibly (I use 16/8 intermittent fasting but that's not just for weight loss reasons).

Took me about 12 months to drop 25kg, feel like a different person and love running (done 5 half marathons and have a full one in Nov).

Lost my belly along the way but it was one of the last fat bits to go!

Before/after pic:

214705x.jpg
 
To summarise the energy system discussion:

Aiming for the "fat burning zone" is not useful. Low intensity exercise is fine, but it's not better than smashing yourself with higher intensities.
 
mrthingyx said:
Love this expression. :D

Apparently, kids nowadays want the "Ed Cullen" look rather than the "Freefaller."

It is a sad place with mop emo hair, beanies and jeans around the knees.

To be fair, however, my quest to be 85kg is proving similarly depressing. Although, I did officially drop that this morning. :cool:
Click to expand...

Don't know who Ed Cullen is - but my look = Alpha Male. ;)
 
We're talking about the skinny jean wearing long haired only got abz because they've never had a square meal sort of manchild though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom