Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61

Thread: Weight loss etc. discussion

  1. #1

    Default Weight loss etc. discussion

    Just so as not to make a mess of Bri's thread, I thought I'd start a seperate one to discuss the questions raised in it.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

  2. #2

    Default

    Smiler quote:

    "6$millionfella – if you don’t want to disagree then don’t. Think about what you wrote. You are talking about calorie expenditure and not where the energy is coming from."

    I'm just on my way out but thought I'd quickly address this. We've discussed the weight loss vs. fat loss thing before and didn't really get anywhere. I realise they are not the same thing, but I feel like you're saying that burning fat (directly) is the way you lose body fat and burning calories is not as effective at producing decreases in body fat. Fat equates to calories. It doesn't matter where the energy is coming from, if you produce a calorie defecit of 100 you will lose the same amount of energy (and fat) regardless of the source within the body.

    Look up the principle of conservation of energy.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rob T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    9,171

    Default

    Can I just say that it would be useful if people gave their opinions on what is true and then also linked to any studies etc which they have to back it up.

    Otherwise it is impossible to differentiate between any claims.
    http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/

  4. #4

    Default

    Agreed Rob (just on my way out but will post some evidence later)

    The thread regarding weight loss vs. fat loss is entitled "long runs" and is in the training and condtioning section. I don't think I have much to add to that than what I've said there.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

  5. #5
    Gary 'Smiler' Turner
    Pro Fighter

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    6millionfella, there is always a cross over. I’ve not said otherwise. However, I am talking about the most efficient way of burning fat.

    Burning Calories may not be as effective at producing decreases in body fat when compared with directly targeting fat as an energy source. Look at the body’s energy systems, when they are utilised, and under what conditions, and you’ll get an idea of where I come from.

    Remember the other thread is about losing fat and gaining muscle, and I’m talking in those terms.

    If you want to work purely on a Calorie deficit basis it’s no skin off my teeth. I just posted what I know to be the best way of achieving fat burn without muscle wastage. Funny too that some of the most recognised in the field of fat burning agree with what I’m saying…and that’s what led me in that direction of my research to see why they were saying the what that they were saying.

    Interesting you start a new thread and then want to stop it...?!?

    Rob T – you’ll have to do your own research now, I’m not going down that route. You haven’t bothered to read anything I’ve presented previously so I can’t be bothered to put anything like that forward again. Instead I’ll be posting what I’ve discovered from my research, if you want to listen great, I would welcome feedback, if you don’t want to listen well that’s fine for me too, I’m still going to post as I get loads of PM’s and emails thanking me for my advice. I also get PM’s pointing me in new directions to look at, so that’s great too as I keep learning.

  6. #6

    Default

    I havn't said anywhere that I want to end this thread- don't know where you got that.

    My issue with your energy systems argument is based on physics rather than biology. If you take X amount of calories and use Y amount (from any source) then the remainder will be converted into fat:

    X-Y = change in fat stores

    So fat loss is a result of energy in (calories) minus energy out (work done).

    The equation has to balance due to the principle of conservation of energy so why does it matter where in your body's energy stores the energy comes from? If you burn a higher percentage of fat, yet produce the same net change in energy as burning a high percentage of glucose, the overall change in energy (calories) is the same. In this case, you will lose the same amount of fat either way because if you've burned more fat, you've burned less glucose and vice versa. So during the exercise you might be burning more fat, but after that the fact that you've burned the same amount of calories will mean that you will have more glucose and this will be stored as fat.

    That's basically why I don't agree with what you said about walking rather than running to lose fat (not just burn it in the very short term before it is replaced). I agree the fat burning zone exists, but all it means is that you are burning more fat in that moment, it doesn't mean it is the most efficient way to lose fat overall. It would be the same as eating 100 calories of sugar and saying that's better than eating 100 calories of fat because sugar isn't fat and therefore you're not taking in any fat.

    Besides that, I think time is an issue for practical weight loss it takes a lot longer to burn 500 calories walking than running.

    I'm totally willing to accept I'm wrong if you can show me why.
    Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.

  7. #7
    Gary 'Smiler' Turner
    Pro Fighter

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Er…read your post yesterday with fresh eyes…that’s where my stopping thread posting came from – apologies if I miss-interpreted.

    I had to read your post several times as its quite confusingly written, but I understand where you are coming from, and you need to look at the energy systems in the body, how energy is utilized and stored in the body, and the circumstances when each happens.

    As I’ve said many times, if you want to effectively burn fat and build (or maintain muscle) your approach needs to be different than the standard weight loss – calories in v calories out.

    Smiler

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rob T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Wales
    Posts
    9,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smiler View Post
    Rob T – you’ll have to do your own research now, I’m not going down that route. You haven’t bothered to read anything I’ve presented previously so I can’t be bothered to put anything like that forward again.
    Um, I read most of the links you posted in other threads. YOU ignored my criticism of the fact you weren't linking to studies which supported a SPECIFIC claim you were making.

    Regardless, I only put the post in as an aside on this thread to give people an idea how to keep it meaningful. Without posting evidence to support your claims they are worthless.

    You can say one thing, 6million$man can post the opposite. If neither of you post evidence which supports your claims, how do people differentiate between it?

    lol at PMs, I get them too. Congratulations!
    http://www.ChrisReesAcademy.com - http://thetattooedchimp.blogspot.co.uk/

  9. #9
    Gary 'Smiler' Turner
    Pro Fighter

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    Robt, lol, this is a forum not a court of law.

    Not going down the 'must post science' tract. That's your need, not mine. So go and do it. In the past I made specific claims, I backed them up. You ignored them and the interpretation of them. So, not bothering to go down that route again.

    Instead, I'll be spending my time helping those that I can help with my best advice, based on a long sporting career and every experience I've had, lessons and learnings from colleagues, mentors, trainers, discussion groups, elite sources of learning, a lifetime of study and research, experience of personal practical application, experience of practical applications with clients, modelling those that get results, and all the research and academic work that goes along with it. And I'm continuing to learn and develop.

    So if you need science or whatever go and look for it yourself - I'm not going to bother pulling all my research together and posting for you as you can't be assed to look for yourself - why should I give you the shortcuts I've spent a lifetime discovering? Especially when there are so many studies and research papers to read around one subject - you are always seeming to be looking for a 'magic bullet' - and sorry, this just doesn't exist. You need to completely read around a subject and continue to keep updated to gain full understanding.

    So instead I'm going to just post helpful advice, and I will discuss matters if people are constructively interested. If you want to read, fine, if not, that's fine too.

    In respect to 6$milliondollar mans post, I've satisfied myself that whilst he is working on a base set of principles that I agree with the interpretation is not mine, because of the further research I've done in that area. I don't need to see his research, because I've done my own extensively around that area. If he wants to research mine that's fine, its up to him.

    The way people differentiate between which posts to follow and those that they do not is purely, completely, down to their own personal empowerment and understanding of the subject. I'm more than willing to give my best advice. People don't have to take it.

    Best regards,

    Smiler

  10. #10

    Default

    TBH all the stuff I could throw out is fairly anecdotal.

    So far I've lost 5.5 stone from my starting weight of 322Lbs (way back before I started BJJ). By far the most depressing form of fat loss that was completely unsustainable for me was long cardio sessions eg: 60 minutes rowing 12Km. I am now completely focused on high intensity stuff creating as much metabolic disruption as possible.

    My new favourite 4 words: 'Weights Complex' & 'Tabata Protocol'.

    A popular regimen based on a 1996 study[2] uses 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). In the original study, athletes using this method trained 4 times per week, plus another day of steady-state training, and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state (70% VO2max) training 5 times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO2max at the end (from 52 to 57 ml/kg/min), but the tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 ml/kg/min). Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits.
    (And yes before you ask, I have been getting into R.Dos Remedios' book 'Cardio Strength Traning'.)

    I'll keep you posted how this latest push to get under 100kg unfolds.
    ''Fren let me tell you, purple must smash people. SMASH THEM...that is hequirement for purple. Purple belt dangerus man, if purple belt cannot smash he not real purple'' - CREONTE
    Follow me on Twitter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This website uses cookies to enhance user experience. They can be disabled at any time. Please see our FAQ's for details.