Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

What burn the most calories/fat

Recommended Posts

Ok i need your help. I am recovering for a Non union clavical that i had surgery on 6 weeks ago now. During all that time i put on some weight. about 20-25 lbs I am at 203. I want to get to 180. I am 21 years old and i have never had to diet. So i have been eating good but i dont know what does the most. I can run or do a crosstrainer Olyptical type, also cycling both bike style and the ones that you are cycling in a chair. Also i have a regualr MT bike i can ride too. I have time to do 30-45 a day and was wondering should i do it 2 times a day or will i just burn my self out? And just how many calories should i eat a day if i want to loose this weight by mid to end of september. PLEASE HELP!!!!! Also i did search didnt find much to be helpful. any other tips that will help burn my fat off are very much welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just cardio but also weight training. Building muscles will help you lose weight. Not at first: you will gain. Then you will lose, faster.

You could run, it's still the best way to burn calories and work your heart out, but it is not going to make you lose a lot of weight fast, like you want.

30 minutes weight lifting will make you burn around 350 calories + help you regain some confidence and also make you lose more weight in the end.

1 lbs of muscle burns 10 calories a day just by having it, without even exercizing it.

Fat does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From other posts on this site, I have learned a lot, so doing a search would probably work out great for you. It takes 3500 calories to burn a pound of fat from your body. So, to lose one pound of fat a week you will need to burn 3500 more calories than you take in with your diet. The reports say that you can only lose between 2 and 3 pounds of fat per week, so that is 7,000 to 10,500 calories burned more than intake per week.

Weight lifting for tone 12 -15 reps with 3 sets will help gain lean muscle and help burn calories, but you also need to burn calories by some type of cardio (run, walk, elliptical, bike, jump rope) to help your body.

Others with the better background (C3H6O3 and SHANES) will hopefully pop their heads in here and give you more info if you need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i will for sure add in the weight lifting when i can after the doc says so. I love to lift but i am not going to risk it. So sounds like i just need to stick with running and my Mountain bike then. What are your guys diets like??? what and how much do you eat?? My big problem is i have a big country appetite so that kills me in all aspects. Any type of food that helps you burn fat or anyting like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for eating, you may want to try different things than "country eating".

You may want to cut on the fried stuff and all the bad carbs. Eat more produce and veggies, in variety.

Forget about the traditional "food pyramid", it was drawn a long time ago and anybody who eats all the stuff on the pyramid is either a fat slob or built like Arnie.

Don't bother those who tell you you're eating "rabbit food" or even "chick food". A good salad with fresh produce can have a lot more taste that a burger with fries as long as you put a lot of different things in it and add a kick (hot peppers, salsa instead of dressing, blue cheese, etc...).

It always crack me up when a guy tells me that a hamburger is "man food". Premasticated meat between two slices of premasticated bread?

Hit http://www.nutritiondata.com and enter all your favorite food and see what it's got for you as far as fat, bad carbs and sodium.

The most important thing to eat are proteins, because they are used in more body functions than carbs and fat. Lean meat or supplements (whey) will prove a lot better in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember the web site, but I think there is one called burnthefat.com, or something similar. Pay attention to the calories in your diet. Write down everything you eat and then look it up and see how many calories you are eating. Think about ways to change that and slowly make the change and your body will hardly notice the difference and eat more often. Instead of Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner have 5 to six small meals and always have some type of breakfast. This is just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just about calories, people.

The way they measure calories does not necessarily reflect the true nutritional value of food.

Something labeled "300 calories" may be more fattening than something else with double the amount of calories. More fattening and less energetic.

I see young kids now (girls around 12 and even boys) counting their calories because they do like their moms. But they do not know exactly what's good for them, although this should be taught at an early age (6 to 10 years old).

Kids are told "eat your veggies, it's good for you" but they are not told exactly why. How fat is stored in your body, why fat is good and why too much is bad is not clearly explained either.

More important than the nutrition data is the composition of the food you get. Canned fruit can be lethal. How much high fructose corn syrup is there? How much sodium? How much sugar? Looks good from the outside, the label says "35 calories per serving", so far so good, until you look at the fine print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying, but it still is calorie burning that takes place. You can still overeat the "good" stuff and not lose weight, because you had more calories of input than your body burned.

35 calories per serving, but it also may say there are 20 servings in a package and you could eat an entire package and not be full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best training buddies you can own is a heart rate monitor. Check the inet for deals. Here is how you use it for fat burning. Get out your calculator then take 220 - (your age) = (Max heart rate). For fat burning you want to elevate your heart rate to 60%-75% of your max heart rate and keep it there for longer than 25 min. For example, lets say you are 30 yr old.

220-30=190. Your max heart rate is 190.

190 x .60 = 114 This is 60% of your max heart rate

190 x .75 = 146 This is 75% of your max heart rate

For optimal fat burning you should keep your heart rate between 114 and 146 for 25 min or longer, 4-5 times per wk. Below 65% and you aren't burning fat, above this and you are burning glycogen out of your muscles. When you burn glycogen in your muscles it leaves lactic acid behind and causes muscle soreness. This is fine for strength training but not for fat burning. If you are into details check out "The Ultimate Ride" by Chris Carmichael. It's a great reference and gets into the ins and outs of exercise physiology.

Good luck.

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Below 65% and you aren't burning fat
Au contraire. Below 65% you're burning almost exclusively fat. You're just burning fewer calories at the lower intensity.
When you burn glycogen in your muscles it leaves lactic acid behind and causes muscle soreness.
Lactic acid does NOT cause muscular soreness.

The whole notion of the "fat burning zone" is extremely misleading. Here's a snippet of an article I wrote for Racer X in case you missed it:

Myth #1: The “Fat-burning Zone”

Ask almost any trainer and they’ll tell you that to burn the most amount of fat during exercise you need to perform long-duration, moderate-intensity activities - somewhere between 45 and 60 minutes at approximately 70% of your maximal heart rate (MHR). Indeed, research shows that the highest rate of fat oxidation (i.e. “burning”) does occur between approximately 70 and 80% of one’s MHR and that higher intensities depend to a greater extent on carbohydrate for fuel. Furthermore, as the duration of the exercise increases (>30 minutes) not only does the number of calories burned increase, so too does the dependency upon fat as a fuel source. In light of these observations, it’s easy to see how the infamous “fat-burning zone” was born.

While certainly not incorrect, prescribing exercise based upon this information is a bit misleading. To do so assumes that the number of calories expended during exercise and the source of those calories is vital to improving long-term body composition. Current research, however, suggests that this may not be the case. In comparing a 20-week “endurance” training protocol with a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (i.e. interval training), one study found that, even though the endurance-trained group expended more than twice as many calories (28,800 vs. 13,800) over the course of the study, the HIIT group lost significantly more fat. Yes, you read that correctly. Cycling uninterrupted for 30 to 40 minutes 4 or 5 times a week resulted in LESS fat lost than performing 10 to 15 short (15-30 seconds), all-out sprints. At first glance, this appears to contradict perhaps the most widely accepted principle of exercise prescription yet, subsequent research has supported these original findings. So the question is, how does brief, high-intensity exercise, which burns predominantly carbohydrate for fuel, lead to greater long-term fat loss? The answer lies in what happens after you stop exercising.

Quite understandably, the earlier studies (upon which the “fat-burning zone” is based) examined only the exercise period itself and failed to take into account the number of calories expended in the post-exercise period which, depending on the severity of the exercise bout, can be quite substantial. Returning the body to it’s pre-exercise state (i.e. replenishment of energy stores, lactate removal, regulation of body temperature, etc.) requires energy and, as you might now guess, the substrate used to fuel these processes comes from pre-existing fat stores.

Intense activities (>80% MHR) such as interval training and weight lifting can result in higher-than-normal fat oxidation that lasts long after exercise has ended. In fact, resistance training has been shown to raise metabolism by 20% for up to 48 hours! Performed 3 or 4 times a week, this “after burn” can add up to tens of thousands of calories over the course of a year. Even if we conservatively estimate the post-exercise expenditure to be in the neighborhood of 150 calories, exercising in this fashion 3 days per week for one year would result in over 23,000 calories expended above and beyond those burned while exercising. That is the equivalent of nearly 7lbs of fat!

In contrast, it appears that the fat-burning benefits of low- to moderate-intensity activities (<70% MHR) cease almost as soon as you stop working out. If you’re lucky you might expend an additional 10-20 calories in the post-exercise period which would add up to a whopping 3000 extra calories or so over the course of a year - less than that contained in a single pound of fat. To make matters worse, unless you are extremely unfit, this type of training will do nothing to enhance your performance on the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really believe in the fat burning zone either. It is important to keep your hearbeat below 80% of your maximum, but keeping it at below 70% is often impracticle.

When you hit the "fat burn" button on the treadmill, you find yourself walking...

Although walking is still better exercise than watching TV, it is something that I can do somewhere else than at the gym.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is important to keep your hearbeat below 80% of your maximum
Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called cardio training.

Training your heart, not overtraining it.

Just like when you casually ride, you almost never go WOT.

When you race, you will over rev a lot more.

Your heart is your engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great article, C3H6O3. Thank you.
My pleasure, Dub. I just wish I had more time to write (or got paid for it :thumbsup:). The full article (and Part II) is on my website under "Training the Female Athlete". Don't let the title fool you, though, the principles are the same regardless of gender unless otherwise noted, of course.

I am about to buckle down and start writing a training manual for motocross/supercross. I hope to have it finished by the WMA World Championships which will be held in my "backyard" in November. That might be a bit ambitious but I am going to try nonetheless. Let me know if you (or anyone else) have any particular topics you want addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C3H603

You confirmed the efficacy of the fat burning zone in your 1st paragraph. This is the current accepted scientific approach to weight loss. I fashioned my answer to the original question to the lay person as a lecture on cellular metabolism would confuse the issue. I also advocate strength training for weight loss but my typing skills prevent me from detailing a complete fitness program for a status post clavicle fracture in under 2 hr. I would be very interested in reading the research article that you refer to in your reply. As you know, exercise programming is constantly developing and I am always interested in current published scientific research. If you could give me the name of the article, author and date of publication I will look the article up on medline or pubmed and compare it to the research that I currently use to guide my program development. Until then I'll continue to use (and advocate) the current published research.

At the beginning of your reply you stated that lactic acid "does NOT" cause muscle soreness but never really detailed the research backing your position. According to "Therapeutic Exercise, Foundations and Techniques" by Carolyn Kisner and Lynn Colby "Acute muscle soreness often develops... because of lack of adequate blood flow oxygen (ischemia) and a temporary buildup of metabolites such as lactic acid and potassium in the exercised muscle". References for this position are;

1) Clarkson, PM and Tremblay I: Exercise induced muscle damage, repair and adaptation in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology 65:1-6,

2)Dorpat, TL and Holmes,TH: Mechanisms of skeletal muscle pain and fatigue. Archive of Neurological Psychology 74:628

3)Torg, JS Welsh RP, and Sheppard, RJ: Current Therapy in Sports Medicine, Vol 2. B.C. Decker, Toronto, 1990

Again, I am always interested in the current research and would appreciate an author and scientific publication so I can remain current on the research. Until then, I will continue to advocate weight loss per the current research. I will also continue recommend "The Ultimate Ride" by Chris Carmichael (Lance Armstrong's conditioning coach) for a no nonsense, easy to read guide to exercise physiology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You confirmed the efficacy of the fat burning zone in your 1st paragraph.
I most certainly did. I also said that that approach might not be your best or most time-efficient approach. I never said it wasn't true, I said it was a bit misleading. Big difference.

The fact is as long as you are creating a caloric deficit you will lose weight. Research supports both approaches. If you prefer to stay at a moderate intensity for hours on end then so be it. I prefer to get in and get out. In addition, high-intensity training is superior for conditioning motocross/supercross athletes. It was in this context that I wrote the article. Please keep that in mind.

This is the current accepted scientific approach to weight loss.
By whom? You know as well as I do that governing bodies are slow and reluctant to change their position stands on any given topic. Look how long it took them to restructure the stupid food pyramid.
I also advocate strength training for weight loss
Why?
I would be very interested in reading the research article that you refer to in your reply.
Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8.

Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.

At the beginning of your reply you stated that lactic acid "does NOT" cause muscle soreness but never really detailed the research backing your position. According to "Therapeutic Exercise, Foundations and Techniques" by Carolyn Kisner and Lynn Colby "Acute muscle soreness often develops... because of lack of adequate blood flow oxygen (ischemia) and a temporary buildup of metabolites such as lactic acid and potassium in the exercised muscle". References for this position are;

1) Clarkson, PM and Tremblay I: Exercise induced muscle damage, repair and adaptation in humans. Journal of Applied Physiology 65:1-6

2)Dorpat, TL and Holmes,TH: Mechanisms of skeletal muscle pain and fatigue. Archive of Neurological Psychology 74:628

3)Torg, JS Welsh RP, and Sheppard, RJ: Current Therapy in Sports Medicine, Vol 2. B.C. Decker, Toronto, 1990

Damn, Derek that book was written ten years ago and the studies you cited were published in 1990, 1988, and nineteen freaking fifty-five!

From Sports Med. 2003;33(2):145-164 Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: Treatment Strategies and Performance Factors

"The lactic acid theory is based on the assumption that lactic acid continues to be produced following exercise cessation. For the lay public, the accumulation of toxic metabolic waste product is thought to cause a noxious stimulus and the perception of pain at a delayed stage. However, this theory has largely been rejected as the higher degree of metabolism associated with concentric muscle contractions have failed to result in similar sensations of delayed soreness. In addition, lactic acid levels return to pre-exercise levels within 1 hour following exercise and blood lactate levels measured before, during and sporadically up to 72 hours after level and downhill running have failed to show a relationship between lactic acid levels and soreness ratings. Therefore, lactic acid may contribute to the acute pain associated with fatigue following intense exercise, however, it can not be attributed to the delayed pain that is experienced 24-48 hours post-exercise."

Sorry, gotta run for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C3H603 I agree with the stupid foot pyramid statement.

Problem is that I saw a poster of it on a wall in a K-12 school not too long ago.

http://www.mypyramid.gov

http://www.nutritiondata.com

You ask why weight training, are you asking him to explain why he thinks you should do weight training, or are you just asking generally?

An image is often better than many words:

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/WTCalLBWStudy.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You ask why weight training, are you asking him to explain why he thinks you should do weight training, or are you just asking generally?
I'm just curious as to the recommendation of weight training for weight loss. Trust me, I'm a HUGE proponent of strength training for injury prevention and performance enhancement. It's also great for improving body composition which is what I'm sure Derek meant. I just wanted to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×