lower intensity cardio for fat burn and protein for energy?

[Titan]

I was reading in some women's magazine the other day in the drug store while waiting for a prescription. Sorry I can't recall the name, it was one word like Living or something. Anyway they were talking about all these women who lost weight just by brisk walking every day. They claim that a moderate-paced walk burns more fat that a higher stress cardio workout. Then they cited some cardiologists saying that if you don't push your heart too much, you won't tap into your glycogen stores and will instead be more inclined to burn fat. I've heard from a bodybuilder/nutritionist friend that you have to deplete all your glycogen first before you can go oxidative.

So last time I was at the gym I went for 45 minutes on the elliptical keeping my heart rate between 120 and 130 instead of 150-160 for 30 minutes and burned the same calorie total. I notice my body is very different, feels more flushed all over. I also notice that when my heart rate is above 160, I get some slight chest pains as I am going anaerobic.

So is there an optimal fat burn heart rate for cardio? If it is lower, I would plan to just do longer sessions.

Unrelated, I just had a tooth pulled and am cheating the diet with a lot of comfort food and have been getting more carbs and less protein. I seem a lot more sluggish then before, and I am wondering, as I always hear that muscle is easier to metabolize then stored fat - do you get higher energy in a high protein diet because protein is so easy to metabolize?

 

[brikis98]

1. Stop reading random women's magazines for health/exercise advice.
2. Read the fat loss sticky.
3. Read about "the afterburn effect". I especially like this quote:

Caring how much fat is burned during training makes as much sense as caring how much muscle is built during training.

 

[CLite]

If I wanted to troll Brikis98 I would use a carbon copy of the OP.

Regarding your workout method, if you are getting "slight" chest pains I'd caution agaisnt that level of exertion early on. Brisk walks clearly work if it is the only effort you can put in, but it won't be the most efficient. My grandfather lost a ton of weight with proper diet and brisk walks around his local lake. The key is to find something you don't mind doing for the rest of your life, without giving yourself chest pains....

 

[CRXican]

I find I get the best results when walking briskly while reading women's magazines and eating a bucket of chicken.

 

[magomago]

I find if I let mydiet, for one night, go to crap, I can easily sleep 10 hours and wake up groggy as if I have no energy. Normally I pop up feeling great after 6.5-7 hours without an alarm so as long as I maintain activity 5-6 times a week. Avoid the comfort foods and at the very least go for walks. Tastes good the moment you eat it, but makes you feel like after wards. Of course, this is all in moderation. I had some ice cream last night and that didn't mess me up. Of course I'm not eating that each night

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Titan
I was reading in some women's magazine the other day in the drug store while waiting for a prescription. Sorry I can't recall the name, it was one word like Living or something. Anyway they were talking about all these women who lost weight just by brisk walking every day. They claim that a moderate-paced walk burns more fat that a higher stress cardio workout. Then they cited some cardiologists saying that if you don't push your heart too much, you won't tap into your glycogen stores and will instead be more inclined to burn fat. I've heard from a bodybuilder/nutritionist friend that you have to deplete all your glycogen first before you can go oxidative.

So last time I was at the gym I went for 45 minutes on the elliptical keeping my heart rate between 120 and 130 instead of 150-160 for 30 minutes and burned the same calorie total. I notice my body is very different, feels more flushed all over. I also notice that when my heart rate is above 160, I get some slight chest pains as I am going anaerobic.

So is there an optimal fat burn heart rate for cardio? If it is lower, I would plan to just do longer sessions.

Unrelated, I just had a tooth pulled and am cheating the diet with a lot of comfort food and have been getting more carbs and less protein. I seem a lot more sluggish then before, and I am wondering, as I always hear that muscle is easier to metabolize then stored fat - do you get higher energy in a high protein diet because protein is so easy to metabolize?

I'll second what brikis said about which is optimal for fat burn. You're burning calories either way. It'll come mainly from fat if you're doing it right.

In reference to carbs/protein and their effects on energy levels, it really depends. If you're eating a lot of simple, fast digesting carbs then your energy levels will dip. If you're eating good lean protein or even some protein with significant fat, digestion is slowed and satiety is increased. With carbs, the hormones that react will often affect energy levels simply by adjusting blood sugar levels. If you get your diet back on track with increased lean protein intake and with better complex carbs then your energy will come back (depending on how you sleep).

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CRXican
I find I get the best results when walking briskly while reading women's magazines and eating a bucket of chicken.

The Rosie O'Donnell "walk to KFC" diet?

 

[gramboh]

Trying to purposely maintain a lower heart rate for a set duration is counter intuitive (and I know it is suggested whereever the lovely 'fat burning' versus 'cardio' zone thing comes up). I tried that a few years ago and through my own experience (which is backed up by research) that higher heart rate = more work done = more results (in terms of calories burned therefore weightloss if that is your goal).

Eating junk carbs makes me feel like crap. The past few months I've been having a cheat day on the weekend where I eat a bunch of garbage chocolate (e.g. minieggs) while playing TF2 for hours on end. The next day I feel like garbage and if it's a training day my performance is notably worse. But they taste goooood.

 

[Titan]

Thanks for the input guys. I do appreciate it.

My main question about the first thing is: is it true? Do you burn more fat with a lower heart rate because glycogen is not depleted? Wondering if anyone has any nutritionist/physiology/sports medicine experience. I don't care what the source is if I just want to know the truth.

I don't really get chest pains, they are right kinda under my heart, probably pain in my windpipe as I get winded directly under my sternum. Used to happen all the time when I was younger and ran every day. Almost like bad hearburn but not the same sensation either. My point was that I pay close attention to my body and am "tuned in." During high cardio I get that slight pain and my spit gets thicker. Under 160 heart rate I am aerobic but getting a good workout and sweat a lot. When I did the longer routine at 130 heart rate or less I was a different kind of tired and my skin felt flushed. I was just tuned-in is all.

The diet stuff interests me as I get at 1/4 to 1/3 of my daily protein from whey shakes with fish oil. I may try the casein powder at some point and see how it goes. Just a curiosity. But I did have some shredded wheat for breakfast and have higher energy so it must be the simple sugars making me sluggish. I was mainly poking around the question: what does a higher protein diet result in?

As I am big and carry my weight well, I have a good amount of muscle that I'd like to keep most of, and if there is a way to burn more fat instead of muscle by doing cardio I would like to know. I am not doing a lifting routine yet as I want to drop about 20 pounds and be able to move better and handle old injures before I get back into lifting.

 

[edcarman]

Here's a link that explains it in detail:
http://alanaragon.com/myths-un...one-fasted-cardio.html

You burn a mixture of fat and glucose.
At low intensities you burn a higher percentage of fat than glucose, but your overall energy consumption is low e.g. 100Cal/hr fat and 25Cal/hr glucose, giving 125Cal/hr.
At high intensities you burn a highger percentage of glucose and the overall energy consumption in high e.g. 100Cal/hr fat and 400 Cal/hr glucose, giving 500Cal/hr.

The studies linked above show that over long periods of time fat loss depends almost entirely on the total amount of energy burned, rather than the intensity of the exercise e.g using the examples above, 4hrs of low intensity would give the same eventual result as 1hr of high intensity.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Titan
Thanks for the input guys. I do appreciate it.

My main question about the first thing is: is it true? Do you burn more fat with a lower heart rate because glycogen is not depleted? Wondering if anyone has any nutritionist/physiology/sports medicine experience. I don't care what the source is if I just want to know the truth.

Yes. To simplify the biochemistry, consider this: glycogen is a highly branched molecule which allows for rapid energy release in a short period of time. Additionally, your body has incredibly limited stores of it (for evolutionary reasons which include the fact that glycogen traps a tremendous amount of water, meaning that if you had a large amount of it you woulld weigh a tremendous amount). Subsequently, for anaerobic activity, it is the preferred fuel. In contrast, fat is a tremendous efficient way of storing energy - it doesn't require water, and can pack a ton of energy into what is comparatively a small volume.

Now if you think about this from a evolutionary standpoint, your body is going to hoard the glycogen for whenever a tremendous boost of energy is needed (e.g. running from a saber-tooth tiger). If the body consumed glycogen for slightly strenuous activities (e.g. walking), we would fall flat on our faces after a small amount of time - not exactly advantageous for survival. Thus: we use fat for less strenuous activities, and glycogen for more. So the trick is not to be out of breath, but not to the point where you can have a long thought-through conversation with your friend on the treadmill next to you. At that point, it is time to raise the intensity because your body has adapted.

The diet stuff interests me as I get at 1/4 to 1/3 of my daily protein from whey shakes with fish oil. I may try the casein powder at some point and see how it goes. Just a curiosity. But I did have some shredded wheat for breakfast and have higher energy so it must be the simple sugars making me sluggish. I was mainly poking around the question: what does a higher protein diet result in?

A carbohydrate-restricted diet is going to mostly result in tougher workouts, especially if you are not used to such diets AND particularly if you are doing resistance exercise (which is largely anaerobic). For active people, I would not recommend cutting carbohydrate intake at all. Instead, shifting consumption to favor whole grains and more complex carbohydrates can improve your energy levels AND cut calories. Incidentally, what is your protein intake? People have this mistaken assumption that eating all the protein in the world is the best thing in the world, but the fact remains that as a nation we consume far too much protein in relationship to our needs. For the majority of people the national average (about 1.2-1.5 g/kg) is more than sufficient (the 'recommended' amount is 0.8 g/kg, which may in fact be too high). Personally, I find whole food sources to be more than sufficient (I eat roughly 4000 kcal a day). There is really no justification to be downing 40g of protein in one shake, besides the fact that the supplement companies will love to sell you more powder. Use it strategically, not as a replacement for whole food.

As I am big and carry my weight well, I have a good amount of muscle that I'd like to keep most of, and if there is a way to burn more fat instead of muscle by doing cardio I would like to know. I am not doing a lifting routine yet as I want to drop about 20 pounds and be able to move better and handle old injures before I get back into lifting.

You might consider interval training (HIIT). It has been shown in some studies to be nearly as effective as extended cardiovascular exercise in improving body composition. Case in point: sprinters.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Kipper
Incidentally, what is your protein intake? People have this mistaken assumption that eating all the protein in the world is the best thing in the world, but the fact remains that as a nation we consume far too much protein in relationship to our needs. For the majority of people the national average (about 1.2-1.5 g/kg) is more than sufficient (the 'recommended' amount is 0.8 g/kg, which may in fact be too high).

The amount of protein a person needs depends on how active they are and the type of activity. The more exercise you do, especially resistance training, the more protein you need. If you are also attempting to lose weight, then maintaining muscle mass is also of primary concern, which means protein requirements are still higher. As explained here, "protein intakes of 1.4 ? 2.0 g/kg/day for physically active individuals is not only safe, but may improve the training adaptations to exercise training." This is a whole lot more than the 0.8 g/kg that is 'recommended'.

Originally posted by: Kipper
Personally, I find whole food sources to be more than sufficient (I eat roughly 4000 kcal a day). There is really no justification to be downing 40g of protein in one shake, besides the fact that the supplement companies will love to sell you more powder. Use it strategically, not as a replacement for whole food.

I agree that whole foods should be the primary, if not the only, source of protein in the diet.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: brikis98
The amount of protein a person needs depends on how active they are and the type of activity. The more exercise you do, especially resistance training, the more protein you need. If you are also attempting to lose weight, then maintaining muscle mass is also of primary concern, which means protein requirements are still higher. As explained here, "protein intakes of 1.4 ? 2.0 g/kg/day for physically active individuals is not only safe, but may improve the training adaptations to exercise training." This is a whole lot more than the 0.8 g/kg that is 'recommended'.

I'm well aware of the elevated protein requirements required for active persons. However, OP is not currently engaged in a resistance training program. As such, extra amounts of protein are pretty much unnecessary. Nor am I particularly concerned about loss of lean mass during weight loss because provided weight loss is achieved at a reasonable pace, there is very little fear of catabolizing appreciable amounts of lean tissue - ~1 lb/week (in comparison to the example in another thread of someone losing 90 lbs in 4 months). Focusing on consumption of a high protein diet in this case is probably frivolous and efforts would be better spent elsewhere, such as tighter control of calories.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: gramboh
Trying to purposely maintain a lower heart rate for a set duration is counter intuitive (and I know it is suggested whereever the lovely 'fat burning' versus 'cardio' zone thing comes up). I tried that a few years ago and through my own experience (which is backed up by research) that higher heart rate = more work done = more results (in terms of calories burned therefore weightloss if that is your goal).

Eating junk carbs makes me feel like crap. The past few months I've been having a cheat day on the weekend where I eat a bunch of garbage chocolate (e.g. minieggs) while playing TF2 for hours on end. The next day I feel like garbage and if it's a training day my performance is notably worse. But they taste goooood.

2nd paragraph describes me perfectly. Feel so crappy.

Ate 8 donuts at work once, felt horrible towards the end of the day. Took me a full day (2 nights) recover. Rarely do I ever do that, only when I forget how bad it felt last time. Heh.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Kipper
I'm well aware of the elevated protein requirements required for active persons. However, OP is not currently engaged in a resistance training program.

Cardio, and especially HIIT, is still exercise and causes muscle breakdown. Obviously, this doesn't boost his requirements as much as resistance training would, but it still increases it over the 0.8g/kg baseline.

Originally posted by: Kipper
Nor am I particularly concerned about loss of lean mass during weight loss because provided weight loss is achieved at a reasonable pace, there is very little fear of catabolizing appreciable amounts of lean tissue - ~1 lb/week (in comparison to the example in another thread of someone losing 90 lbs in 4 months). Focusing on consumption of a high protein diet in this case is probably frivolous and efforts would be better spent elsewhere, such as tighter control of calories.

Yes, if he keeps his weight loss to 1lb/week, muscle loss will be reduced, but not eliminated. This is especially true because he's not doing resistance training but is doing plenty of cardio. This is yet another motivation to increase protein intake still further above the 0.8g/kg baseline. Of course, as I said before, I don't actually know what his diet looks like now, so maybe it already contains enough protein. However, MANY americans eat diets of 60%+ carbs, so it's quite possible he doesn't eat enough protein. Moreover, an increased protein intake has other potential benefits. For example, protein (from whole foods) often provides more satiety than the carbs it would replace. This means he'd be able to eat less without feeling hungry, making it easier to maintain a calorie deficit.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Yes, if he keeps his weight loss to 1lb/week, muscle loss will be reduced, but not eliminated. This is especially true because he's not doing resistance training but is doing plenty of cardio. This is yet another motivation to increase protein intake still further above the 0.8g/kg baseline. Of course, as I said before, I don't actually know what his diet looks like now, so maybe it already contains enough protein. However, MANY americans eat diets of 60%+ carbs, so it's quite possible he doesn't eat enough protein. Moreover, an increased protein intake has other potential benefits. For example, protein (from whole foods) often provides more satiety than the carbs it
would replace. This means he'd be able to eat less without feeling hungry, making it easier to maintain a calorie deficit.

Let's get something straight. You are not going to be able to eliminate lean tissue. Maintaining adequate protein intake can minimize, but not completely eliminate loss. That much is true because you are dealing with the human body, and remains true with pretty much any sort of catabolic event.

My contention remains the same that OP probably consumes more than sufficient protein for his current activity level, given the national averages and the ubiquity of high-protein foods. While protein provides satiety, so do fat and carbohydrates. The simple fact that protein provides additional satiety is not a reason to go out of the way to eat more protein, displacing calories that could be "spent" on other macronutrients - especially when they provide additional health benefits, which excess protein clearly does not.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Kipper
Let's get something straight. You are not going to be able to eliminate lean tissue. Maintaining adequate protein intake can minimize, but not completely eliminate loss. That much is true because you are dealing with the human body, and remains true with pretty much any sort of catabolic event.

You may not be able to eliminate muscle loss 100%, but it's worth making the effort to keep it at a minimum. Not sure why you'd disagree with that.

Originally posted by: Kipper
My contention remains the same that OP probably consumes more than sufficient protein for his current activity level, given the national averages and the ubiquity of high-protein foods.

As I've said several times, without knowing the OP's actual diet, neither of us can really know that for sure.

Originally posted by: Kipper
While protein provides satiety, so do fat and carbohydrates. The simple fact that protein provides additional satiety is not a reason to go out of the way to eat more protein, displacing calories that could be "spent" on other macronutrients - especially when they provide additional health benefits, which excess protein clearly does not.

In general, fat and protein provide more satiety than carbohydrates. Or, perhaps it's really the other way around: excess carbs increase hunger levels. For example, this study is very typical of a diet with reduced carbs and increased fat/protein: "When carbohydrates were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by eating more protein or fat, and lost weight." Maintaining a calorie deficit is hard. Doing it while fighting with hunger is even harder. If changing the type of food you eat makes both easier, it's a huge deal, and well worth the effort.

Moreover, I'm not exactly recommending a diet consisting of 80% protein. If we assume the OP takes ~0.8g of protein per pound (about twice the 0.8g/kg baseline) and weighs 200lbs, that's 160g of protein or 640 calories from protein per day. If he's eating 2000 calories per day, that means he's getting 32% of his calories from protein, leaving plenty of room for carbs and fat. Something like the Zone break down (40/30/30 c/p/f) would work pretty well.

 

[gramboh]

Personally, I haven't seen many typical diets include enough protein. Most people seem to eat a lot of carbs, some fat and some protein, but in the wrong proportions.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: brikis98
You may not be able to eliminate muscle loss 100%, but it's worth making the effort to keep it at a minimum. Not sure why you'd disagree with that.

I'm not. I am saying that he probably consumes more protein than is already necessary for his needs. Just cautioning against an overemphasis on protein, which is very widespread against people engaging in resistance exercise.

In general, fat and protein provide more satiety than carbohydrates. Or, perhaps it's really the other way around: excess carbs increase hunger levels. For example, this study is very typical of a diet with reduced carbs and increased fat/protein: "When carbohydrates were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by eating more protein or fat, and lost weight." Maintaining a calorie deficit is hard. Doing it while fighting with hunger is even harder. If changing the type of food you eat makes both easier, it's a huge deal, and well worth the effort.

Moreover, I'm not exactly recommending a diet consisting of 80% protein. If we assume the OP takes ~0.8g of protein per pound (about twice the 0.8g/kg baseline) and weighs 200lbs, that's 160g of protein or 640 calories from protein per day. If he's eating 2000 calories per day, that means he's getting 32% of his calories from protein, leaving plenty of room for carbs and fat. Something like the Zone break down (40/30/30 c/p/f) would work pretty well.

I'm not particularly enthralled with that study for a variety of reasons, but regardless, I think there is misunderstanding going in both directions. My original statement was to say that the OP's intake (which I assumed to be the national average, more or less) was more than sufficient (also evidenced by his use of protein shakes, which generally deliver between 20-25 g/serving). All I've done is said that overuse of protein isn't particularly useful, nothing more. I've been taking your posts to mean that people should just eat more protein when trying to lose weight and preserve lean mass, which as I've said - I don't think is exactly necessary given the more than sufficient protein intakes this country has.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Kipper
My original statement was to say that the OP's intake (which I assumed to be the national average, more or less) was more than sufficient (also evidenced by his use of protein shakes, which generally deliver between 20-25 g/serving). All I've done is said that overuse of protein isn't particularly useful, nothing more. I've been taking your posts to mean that people should just eat more protein when trying to lose weight and preserve lean mass, which as I've said - I don't think is exactly necessary given the more than sufficient protein intakes this country has.

I gotcha. I guess without actually knowing the OP's diet, it's hard to say. If here really is eating the national average of 1.2-1.5g of protein per kg, then he's probably fine. If he's eating less, as I've seen with a number of people posting on this messageboard, he may want to up his intake.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Kipper
My original statement was to say that the OP's intake (which I assumed to be the national average, more or less) was more than sufficient (also evidenced by his use of protein shakes, which generally deliver between 20-25 g/serving). All I've done is said that overuse of protein isn't particularly useful, nothing more. I've been taking your posts to mean that people should just eat more protein when trying to lose weight and preserve lean mass, which as I've said - I don't think is exactly necessary given the more than sufficient protein intakes this country has.

I gotcha. I guess without actually knowing the OP's diet, it's hard to say. If here really is eating the national average of 1.2-1.5g of protein per kg, then he's probably fine. If he's eating less, as I've seen with a number of people posting on this messageboard, he may want to up his intake.

Sorry I wasn't in this weekend and didn't realize so much activity was going on in this thread. Thanks for all the insight to everyone!

To show, my "good" diet has been this:

2 Whey shakes for lunch and breakfast. Each shake is ~ 60g protein + a scoop of spirulina and about 80 calories high quality fish oil. Also a scoop of this "immune punch" crap that I will not re-use once it is gone cuz it smells like cat food, and I mix in some psyllium for fiber.

Dinner - lean chick and veggies with a bit of dressing for flavor. About 1/2 pound of chicken so maybe another 60-80g protein.

I weigh in at 375 pounds with about a 48 inch waist. I'm 6'3". I can still do 10 pushups, which is like benching 190.

I have been feeding my g/f this awesome "mom's best" shredded mini wheat cereal from the health food store and it has a lot of fiber and no sugar, good stuff. I may go back to cereal for breakfast if only because it would be a bit cheaper than whey shakes and the whole grain can do me good. I just don't want to cut out a lot of protein if it helps me out.

I am working on a real tight budget so my 2 shakes cost at least 3 bucks a day, and things like wheat cereal and pbj hold me over as my missing tooth still bugs me. But I may get back on the "good/goop diet" for higher protein when I feel better. I am still on pain killers (hydrocodone, generic vicodin) so I haven't been doing the gym for a bit. I am anxious to get back.

Thanks again for all the info. This has turned into a great resource which is why I came back to AT.

While I was thinking about the guy who lost so much weight too fast and had skin flaps, I would surely like to avoid this. I have a good amount of stretchmarks all over my torso area, so I'd rather not have flaps, too. I was wondering if any lotions, vitamin -E supplements would help. I use an oat bar for soap cuz it exfoliates if I used that more rigorously it might tell my body my skin is being stimulated and lighlty damaged to help it heal?