7 Important Things About Burning Fat

[Ironwil]

I've done a lot of research recently, and here are a seven things I've found out that I'd like to share with everyone:

1. Diet is the #1 component, but this DOES NOT mean starving yourself. That is sooo self-destructive. Your body will go into starvation mode, and guess what it does then? Lower your metabolism and store everything it can as fat. You do have to create a calorie deficit to lose weight/burn fat, but you need enough food to operate. Don't eat a lot of bread, and try to cut out soda, alcohol and sweets. These things load your blood with sugar, making it more difficult to burn fat. Do this to the limit you can stand. The less of these kinds of things you consume, the faster and better your results.

2. Diet isn't a "diet", it's forever. People "go on a diet", the thought being that they'll do it a short time and then return to normal. Normal is what got you unhappy with your body in the first place. Short-term diets do not work. Ever. Many diets proclaim they'll shave pounds off in just a few weeks, and they will - that's how long it takes your body to adjust to a new stimulus. That's how long it takes your body's metabolism to slow down when you don't eat enough. After that, the pounds come running back, often bringing lots of friends.

3. You don't have to sweat to burn calories. This is a mistake I was making until recently. "Burning" is only a term meaning the using of calories, but it's often taken out of context. The main reason people have an easier time losing weight in summer is that they can't wear as many clothes, and so are more conscientous of what they eat and do. It has very little to do with the heat.

4. You can burn off fat with both high-intensity and low-intensity workouts. It is true that when you keep your heart rate at the lower "fat burning" level, you're burning a higher percentage of fat than blood sugar than you do when working out at higher levels. Remember, however, that at a higher level you're burning more calories overall, so you might still burn more that way. 30% of a lot is still more than 70% of a little. The best idea is to do a bit of both. If you really want to spice it up work out in the morning prior to breakfast. Your blood sugar will be very low, and fat will burn. Watch the impetus to over-eat afterwards, however. Working out before breakfast can really kick-start the apetite.

5. You can't lose fat in one part of your body. I was wrapping my midsection to "burn" calories off faster there, which turned out to be a total waste of time and money. Your body stores fat in a genetically predetermined way that tends to be gender-specific. I'm a man, so I get fat building up in my abs and sides. The fact is, you'll burn fat off in the reverse order you store it in, so your problem areas will unfortunately be the last to shed. They will shed somewhat as the rest of you trims up, but your legs and arms will tend to get lean before your midsection and butt.

6. Women that train with weights will not end up looking like men. This is one of the most irritating myths out there. It isn't possible without illegal pharmacutical help for a woman lifting weights to get huge, manly muscles. Weight training is very important when trying to burn fat off. Muscle takes more calories to maintain than fat, so the more lean muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn, even at rest. Besides that, training with weights is good for your bones. And stay away from those machines. They are much less effective than free weights. Be safe, but pick up some free weights you can handle and use them.

7. Focus more on body composition than the scale. I personally don't want to lose weight. I'm looking to trade my fat for muscle. Even if you do want to lose weight, you might be replacing some fat with muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat. However, muscle is a lot more attractive and functional. Especially in the beginning, you might wonder why the scale isn't showing any progress. It will in time, but remember - the scale might not sing to you, but going down dress sizes does not lie!

 

[persnikitty]

i read all of this very useful information, thanks!

 

[Steve]

Are you a bodybuilder? I only ask b/c I know a bodybuilder who uses your same screen name on a few other forums.

 

[Steve]

I've done a lot of research recently, and here are a seven things I've found out that I'd like to share with everyone:

1. Diet is the #1 component, but this DOES NOT mean starving yourself. That is sooo self-destructive. Your body will go into starvation mode, and guess what it does then? Lower your metabolism and store everything it can as fat.

Any diet, large or small deficit, will slow metabolism down.

You do have to create a calorie deficit to lose weight/burn fat, but you need enough food to operate. Don't eat a lot of bread, and try to cut out soda, alcohol and sweets. These things load your blood with sugar, making it more difficult to burn fat.

Acutely, maybe. But by and large the overriding factor when it comes to "burning fat" is energetic state. If you eat a lot of sugar in one sitting, sure, insulin will rise and some calories will be shuttled to your fat cells. But if you're in a net caloric deficit, guess what happens? Said calories get pulled back out of the fat cells.

I'm not suggesting you should binge on sugar. But a balanced, non-rigid approach is probably best and there's really no reason to fear sugar.

2. Diet isn't a "diet", it's forever. People "go on a diet", the thought being that they'll do it a short time and then return to normal. Normal is what got you unhappy with your body in the first place. Short-term diets do not work. Ever.

All absolutes are wrong.

See what I did there?

Seriously though, some short-term diets work fabulously for some people. It just depends. When I used to care about dieting, I'd almost always use a short-term way of going about things as I preferred to get the dieting part over with in the shortest time possible. But that's me. Like I said, all absolutes are wrong.

Many diets proclaim they'll shave pounds off in just a few weeks, and they will - that's how long it takes your body to adjust to a new stimulus. That's how long it takes your body's metabolism to slow down when you don't eat enough. After that, the pounds come running back, often bringing lots of friends.

Metabolism is not as volatile as you're making it out to be. For instance, metabolism doesn't drop to a point where what was once a deficit now becomes a surplus. Sure, metabolism can drop and it'll make losing weight tricky if you don't modify your approach... but again, it's not like it falls to point where anything you put in your mouth turns to fat.

If you'd like to educate yourself on the variability of metabolic rate in response to starvation, start with the famous Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

6. Women that train with weights will not end up looking like men. This is one of the most irritating myths out there. It isn't possible without illegal pharmacutical help for a woman lifting weights to get huge, manly muscles. Weight training is very important when trying to burn fat off. Muscle takes more calories to maintain than fat, so the more lean muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn, even at rest. Besides that, training with weights is good for your bones. And stay away from those machines. They are much less effective than free weights. Be safe, but pick up some free weights you can handle and use them.

Have you happened to read the stickies?

Also, in your own words explain to me why machines are ALWAYS better than free weights.

 

[Ironwil]

Truths and untruths

Your statement that any diet, large or small, will slow the metabolism down is incorrect. Your metabolism slows down in response to having too little resources for continued operation. If your diet is to restrict calories to something close to your daily requirement and increase exercise, this is not going to slow your metabolism down. If your diet is too restrictive, then it will slow your metabolism down, which is what I was warning people about.

Your statements on sugar are also incorrect. A lot of sugar in one sitting will cause trauma to your kidneys and overload your blood with the sugar, but that wasn't what I meant. Sweets even in small proportions on a regular basis will keep fat burning very difficult to achieve. When exercising, you'll burn a certain percentage of blood sugar and a certain percentage of fat, depending on your effort level. Having a lot of sugars in your blood doesn't lend well to burning fat instead. Laying off of sugar and processed foods will greatly increase fat loss. People often state that they lost 5 pounds in a few weeks by doing nothing but laying off drinking soda.

Your statement that short-term diets work well for some people is incorrect. If they did, we wouldn't have such an issue with overweight people in our country. Nearly anyone can keep up a diet in the short-term. In the late 80's and early 90's there were a lot of short-term diets that were designed to get people ready for summer. They usually lasted exactly 3 weeks. Why is that? It takes a person's body approximately 21 days to adjust to a new stimulus. During that time, a new 'fad' diet will seem to be working, and it is, but what is also happening is that your body is slowing down to match its energy consumption to your caloric intake. After 3 weeks or so, you go back to your normal diet which has more calories, but your body is now burning calories more slowly. Here comes the weight rolling back. Notice how many people say that they gained a lot of weight, even more than they started with, after going off of a diet? My point was that people must make a positive, long-term change if they want positive, long-term results. If they want temporary weight loss... they can try those temporary quick fixes.

And yes, metabolism is just that volatile, and yes, it will lower in just a few weeks. I know that not everything turns to fat if your metabolism slows down, but it is only rational that if a calorie deficit allowed for the weight loss, a calorie surplus is going to put it back on. If you're burning at 70%, but you're eating at 100%, you're going to gain weight. No question. That's why people complain so often that they gain a lot of weight after they finish with a diet.

I'm not at all certain what you were talking about in your last statement. I clearly stated that free weight should be used and machines avoided, and you asked why I thought machines were always better. I also don't know what you meant by 'stickies'. The reason free weights are better is that they require an individual to stabalize the weights, which requires more effort, burns more calories and strengthens muscle better. Only beginners or people with injuries or infirmities that necessitate them should use machines. It is also better for people to use more full-body movements when trying to burn fat, as opposed to isolation movements like leg extensions or leg curls. Dumbell snatches, stiff-legged deadlifts and squats (for those that can do them) are great for getting more of the body involved.

No, I'm not a bodybuilder, but I do a lot of strength training, so it's entirely possible you've seen me on another forum.

 

[Ronbell]

Great info Will, very useful stuff, practical and spot on.

 

[IslandJacks]

Good Info ... but one caveat

The post above has some excellent points. The only one that does not apply to me is the weight training one. I am a 51 year old woman who spent most of my life (until I was hit by a car while training for a tri-athlon) in athletics. My body build is considered Mesomorph (very, very muscular naturally). I DO bulk up easily. I have been asked many times if I am a body builder because of my muscle mass. I am not! I don't look like a man at all, but I am very muscular.

 

[Steve]

Before delving in, let me be very clear. This will be my last post in response to you if all you're going to do is repeat what I originally took issue with. No matter how many times you say some things, said things are still wrong.

I'm all for learning and if you're of the same mindset and are able to let go of having to be right, I believe some good will come out of this thread.

Your statement that any diet, large or small, will slow the metabolism down is incorrect. Your metabolism slows down in response to having too little resources for continued operation.

Here's why your implication is incorrect.

Metabolism can be considered your total energy expenditure per day.

Total energy expenditure is comprised of basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, thermic effect of activity, and non-exercise activity thermogenesis.

If you prefer calculations...

metabolism = tee = bmr + tef + tea + neat

I'm assuming you agree with this, as it's pretty basic information.

When we lose weight, guess what happens? The variables that comprise TEE tend to fall, thus causing a slowdown in metabolism.

For instance, take BMR. Basal metabolic rate is directly effected by the amount of tissue your body has. If you're losing tissue, as in fat while dieting, your BMR is falling. Put differently, your metabolism is falling. This is basically why you can't eat the same amount of calories at the beginning of a weight loss plan as you can at the end - EVEN IF CALORIES ARE SET PROPERLY.

The problem you're running into is the assumption that metabolic rate is controlled primarily by how many calories you're eating. Unfortunately for your assumption, that's not the case. The primary factor is actually your bodyweight. And yes, caloric intake does play a role as well, but secondarily.

Read this slowly - I'm not debating the fact that negative things happen when you diet. I'm simply pointing out that the negative things are going to happen whenever there is a loss of weight. It's basic biology.

It seems you've done a bit of research and I commend you for that. It also seems it wasn't extensive enough to speak authoritatively on the subject matter... no offense intended. In fact, I hope you prove me wrong and teach me something.

You're right in that our bodies are regulated - much like a thermostat. The thermostat in the human body is the hypothalamus. As weight is lost and food intake is reduced, our hypothalamus picks up on this and sends "messages" to the rest of your body. Most of this is done hormonally with their cascading effects.

You're overlooking all the evolutionary biology that's been uncovered over the last few decades pertaining to neurochemistry, leptin, thyroid, ghrelin, insulin, peptide YY, cholecystokinin, etc.

Let's look at leptin, since it's the big player in all of this. Leptin is a hormone that's found mostly in our fat stores. As noted above, the brain is constantly receiving signals from the rest of your body regarding your bodyweight, bodyfat percentage, how much you’re eating, how much you’re
exercising, etc. Leptin is the motherload of signaling devices.

Put very simply, leptin lets your body/brain know the status of your energy stores. The more body fat you have the more leptin you have and vice versa.

So if we lose weight, fast or slow, the drop in leptin will be realized by our brains and it will create a response accordingly. Said response typically pans out as a reduction in metabolic rate.

Are you starting to see the big picture here?

If your diet is to restrict calories to something close to your daily requirement and increase exercise, this is not going to slow your metabolism down.

See above. While I appreciate your passion for sticking with what you've learned, there's a lot more to human metabolism than you're suggesting.

If your diet is too restrictive, then it will slow your metabolism down, which is what I was warning people about.

Restrictive, rigid diets don't work for many people... I agree. The reason they don't work is very complicated and variable.

But the point remains, anytime you're under-feeding your body, there will be a downregulation in metabolic rate.

Your statements on sugar are also incorrect. A lot of sugar in one sitting will cause trauma to your kidneys

Can you provide me the source for this claim?

Sweets even in small proportions on a regular basis will keep fat burning very difficult to achieve.

If you don't like peer-reviewed literature, you could prove this very easily to yourself. I've been working in this industry for quite a long time and like to believe I've seen pretty much everything under the sun.

Believe me when I tell you that it's possible to store fat without eating much sugar at all and it's possible to lose fat when eating quite a bit of sugar.

Why?

Because of thermodynamics. Energy in vs. energy out matters a lot. If I'm in a negative energy state yet eating lots of sugar, fat will be lost. Like I mentioned originally, I'm not promoting a diet high in processed crap. I'm simply trying to maintain the integrity of information here, as you're speaking authoritatively on a subject you don't seem well versed in.

It seems you've read about insulin and it's effects on fat metabolism. Unfortunately, insulin doesn't work in a vacuum. Once you factor in the rest of the happenings with regards to energy and hormones and their interrelations, the picture tends to get a bit blurry.

Not to mention protein has an effect on insulin as well. Plus, have you looked at acylation-stimulating protein? Turns out fat storage happens with or without insulin.

When exercising, you'll burn a certain percentage of blood sugar and a certain percentage of fat, depending on your effort level. Having a lot of sugars in your blood doesn't lend well to burning fat instead. Laying off of sugar and processed foods will greatly increase fat loss.

If energy substrate used during activity was the primary driver of fat loss, you'd have a valid point. But again you're looking at things in a vacuum and writing off the importance of calories.

Depending on the intensity of exercise (intensity is defined as a percentage of max heart rate), you'll use various fuel substrates. There are 3 primary sources of fuel and these are fat, glucose/glycogen, and the phosphagen system.

The lower the intensity of exercise, the more the activity will be fueled by fat. The higher the intensity of exercise, the more the activity will be fueld by sugar and the phosphagen system.

Look at it like this: At complete rest is when the largest percentage of fuel is coming from fat oxidation. So why don't we sit on our butts all day to lose the greatest amount of fat?

Point is, there's a helluva lot more that goes into fat loss than fuel substrate utilization during activity.

Your statement that short-term diets work well for some people is incorrect.

No, actually, it's not. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying, specifically.

Let me help you out...

You said:

Short-term diets do not work. Ever.

I replied by saying all absolutes are wrong and for some people, short term diets are great.

Now you're debating as if I said short term diets are great for everyone. The point I was trying to make, which you clearly missed, is that in this field you don't get to make categorical claims.

Absolutes don't work. While I appreciate your message... that being that for most people temporary diets will lead to temporary results... I'm, again, simply trying to maintain the integrity of information. I'll repeat, SOME people do very well with short term diets. They're the minority. But you don't get to keep repeating that they don't ever work when you're talking to someone who has used them very successfully with myself and some of my clients.

And yes, metabolism is just that volatile, and yes, it will lower in just a few weeks.

Do you care to throw out specific numbers? I've read the research pertaining to metabolic slowdown. Have you?

How about this...

How much does metabolism fall under starvation conditions?

How long does that take?

Will this effect be similar across the board, have the dieter be skinny or obese?

I know that not everything turns to fat if your metabolism slows down, but it is only rational that if a calorie deficit allowed for the weight loss, a calorie surplus is going to put it back on. If you're burning at 70%, but you're eating at 100%, you're going to gain weight. No question.

Sorry... I don't like made up math. While I understand the point you're making... it doesn't match the hard numbers that has been provided through peer reviewed research.

 

[Steve]

I'm not at all certain what you were talking about in your last statement. I clearly stated that free weight should be used and machines avoided, and you asked why I thought machines were always better.

My apologies. I was in a rush. I meant to say, "explain to me why free weights are always better than machines."

I also don't know what you meant by 'stickies'.

Sorry, you must be new to forums. On forums, there are important posts with educational information found at the tops of the various sub-forums. They're "stuck" there so they'll always be the first thing people see.

I highly suggest spending some time reading them. It's common forum etiquette so we don't deal with a lot of repetitive questions and authoritative commentary.

The reason free weights are better is that they require an individual to stabalize the weights, which requires more effort, burns more calories and strengthens muscle better.

Your original statement regarding machines vs. free weights seemed very absolute, which is why I you conjured up concern in me. Now that you have refined your idea to include:

Only beginners or people with injuries or infirmities that necessitate them should use machines.

We're good.

***

My main contention is with what seems like a glossing over of the importance of energy status as it pertains to tissue storage or loss. I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle. I'd be happy if we could speak specifically about this going forward as the other stuff is merely fluff.

 

[Jericho]

Kinda hard to fight again all those facts..Steve, just curious where you get your info? I have read many things you have posted and you seem pretty darn knowledgeable

 

[Steve]

One point I want to make is I'm not trying to bully anyone out of having an opinion. Opinions are fine but not at the expense of facts that have been clearly demonstrated in quality research.

I've been in the fitness industry for just shy of a decade and have an intense passion for learning.

I spent many years self-teaching myself by reading text books any old college student would be required to buy for class. For anyone who's in the field, you quickly learn that texts provide merely a snapshot in time of the research that's currently available. In a field as new to research as nutrition, fitness and weight loss... the pool of peer-reviewed data grows exponentially each month. This leads to most texts being outdated very quickly.

This doesn't make them useless, as they are very good at providing the foundational knowledge required for anyone entering this field as an authority. However, I also think it's important to stay abreast of the research coming out via various journal subscriptions, paper filters on , etc.

Pair the fact that I read/research daily with the fact that I have 9 years of experience working with a wide array of people helping them reach their goals and that's where you get my level of knowledge.

This is my livelihood so I better be knowledgeable, ya know? Talk to me about fixing my car, history, or anything else really and you'll likely think I'm a moron, lol.

 

[cbsfitness]

Gotta read the research. Once you have read it you have to decide if the research was well done, if the conclusion supported the hypothesis and/or if the researchers twisted the data to support their conclusion, plus you have to understand all the physiologic systems, terminology, practical application; because results pertain only to the population used in the study and not to the general population, and finally you have to look at the literature that the researchers used as support. Whew! I study exercise physiology, nutrition, and recovery. I'm not so weight loss oriented as I am into muscle accretion. So, it's a good thing that Steve is willing to write on the basics of thermodynamics and human physiology.

I find this forum interesting. I really like that everyone is trying to learn but, there is a lot of confusion out there. When someone like Steve is willing to distill the science into practical application it's worth reading. I am sure he can refer you to the research if you need it.

 

[ChefChiTown]

6. Women that train with weights will not end up looking like men. This is one of the most irritating myths out there. It isn't possible without illegal pharmacutical help for a woman lifting weights to get huge, manly muscles. Weight training is very important when trying to burn fat off. Muscle takes more calories to maintain than fat, so the more lean muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn, even at rest. Besides that, training with weights is good for your bones. And stay away from those machines. They are much less effective than free weights. Be safe, but pick up some free weights you can handle and use them.

Woman can get huge "manly" muscles just as men can, without the use of steroids or other PEDs. Our physiques are different, but women aren't incapable of developing ripped or bulging muscles.

 

[Ironwil]

Facts are Facts

I have to apologize. When I got home from work, I read your replies and became incensed, because although you wrote that you were not trying to be offensive, they were offensive, and made several derogatory remarks about me. Particularly about not bothering to read the forum rules. I know what sticky posts are. I just didn't make the connection at the time. Anyway, I hit the required button and left a scathing reply in turn, but have since left the ire behind me and decided to just agree to disagree. You have facts, though I don't consider them to stand as proof of the points you're making. As an analogy, I was having a discussion regarding brain implants for computer interfaces in another forum. One person thought that was likely because pacemakers, implanted defibrillators and other devices are currently used. These were facts, and they were about the subject, but they skittered around the actual point. Those devices are used because without them a person will die. That doesn't make brain implants for more likely if someone's life isn't at stake.

I understand your points about energy, and they're good points, but you also must take into account the use of fat for energy and the fact that a person wanting to lose weight is very likely consuming many more calories than they require to operate. In either case, a reduction of calories that isn't extreme should not lower the metabolism. The reason is that fat will be used in place of the caloric deficit, or the calories consumed are now much closer to what their body actually needs in order to operate, but not in excess of it. Over time as the weight losss progresses... you're correct. The BMR will change as your weight and body composition changes. You have to change your diet to accomodate the changes in your body. As you lose fat and your body has less excess to burn, the margin of where to keep your caloric deficit becomes smaller. If a person only consumes a little under or at their estimated caloric need for a day, and exercises to create a deficit, little to no slowing of the metabolism should occur. In fact, as the person builds more lean muscle, it should speed up.

That's why one of my points was to avoid starvation diets. You asked how long for this starvation reflex to begin (just begin, not get into full swing)? Actually, it's fairly immediate, but will get quickly worse over time. Say I eat 5-6 meals a day. My body is used to this, and my internal rythm is geared for it. If I don't eat for 16 hours straight one day, this will cause an upset in my body. My blood sugar will plummet, etc. The nutrition books I've read caution strongly against doing this, particularly if you're active. Training after not eating properly will lead the body to consume muscle as well as fat and glycogen stores in the blood. Precisely how long does it take before the body goes into starvation mode and starts aggressively storing food as fat? I'll be honest - I don't know, but every reputable web site, book and video I've seen agrees that it will. The problem becomes the body's tendency to consume muscle and skeletal tissue when it runs out of other things to burn. It is entirely possible to lose weight very quickly. I once lost 3 pounds in 1 day to make weight for a wrestling match by spitting all day. You can use a more drastic diet to lose more weight over a shorter period, but you'll also lose muscle tissue, which generally isn't good.

A lady responded to this thread to say that if she trains with weights it does bulk her up. Every person's body is different, and some people will naturally have more muscle than average. My wife is like that, but she trains with weights all the time and doesn't have this issue. It doesn't mean that your issue is invalid, IslandJacks. Try different training methods and see what works for you. I am not a naturally large man, but I have built a lot of muscle over the last 20 years, and I'm not even a serious bodybuilder. I'm more of a powerlifter (we tend not to be quite so large as bodybuilders)... Before anyone goes off on a tangent about many powerlifters that are very large - I know! What I mean is that a powerlifting workout does not generate large muscle mass as does a bodybuilding workout. Some, but not as much. Anyway, what I was saying was that it is impossible for a woman to look similar to a serious male bodybuilder without very serious intent to do so (and/or a lot of illegal drugs). My wife has legs larger than average, but are so because of her muscle, much like yours. And I wouldn't trade them!

Yes, I made the statement that free weights should always be used instead of machines (excepting people with injuries, infirmities or beginning athletes). I have a saying "Nothing is ever always true". And it's true - there are times to use machines. I use machines for leg presses, for instance, and for some calf work. That's pretty much it, though, and the reason is simply because free weights are better for developing stable muscles. You have to keep the weights balanced, and it creates different stresses on your muscles. It also builds stronger muscles. If someone doesn't really care a bit about that, or is intimidated by the free weights, they should do what they feel comfortable with. Even "always" or "never" declarations must have a reality check applied to them.

If you have a moment, please provide references for the various statements you made. Several of them seem to have a strong basis, and I'd like to check them out.

 

[Steve]

Derogatory remarks?

lol

Okay.

Good show.