Fat burning question

[mont86]

I have heard that putting on muscle burns fat.

Is that because muscle replaces fat, burns fat or the fact you have to work out to build muscles burns calories..

And how does cardio work into that? I have heard more muscle is better then cardio.

[xamilo]

Originally Posted by mont86

I have heard that putting on muscle burns fat.

Is that because muscle replaces fat, burns fat or the fact you have to work out to build muscles burns calories..

And how does cardio work into that? I have heard more muscle is better then cardio.

When you do muscle workout, you are burning a lot of calories by the exercise itself and by the processes in which your body replaces injured tissue, and rests the muscles. That's the reason why muscle training with the right diet can burn a lot of fat.

Muscle training does burn more calories than cardiovascular training, and it works for the fat burning in the SHORT-TERM. What happens with cardio workouts is you develop a faster metabolism with time, which in the mid-term, long-term burns more fat and prevents you to put that fat back again. Additionally, cardiovascular training has a lot of benefits regarding health, preventing heart-coronary-disease, metabolic problems like diabetes, etc.

Any further question?

[mont86]

I do a lot of cardio...five hours a week..I'm in and out of weight lifting , but
what to change up my routine so I have been adding some weights.
Just trying to learn more about lifting.

[xamilo]

If you want to, just send me a PM with your actual stats, the exercise routine you re going through right now, your SHORT-TERM and LONG-TERM goals, and your available exercise times.

As well, include your "average diet" in a day (two day diet please), with types of food, quantities, times of the day you ingest them, etc.

I'm sure I can help you out with that.

[mont86]

xmalio I laughed when I read your last post. I instantly became ashamed
of what I eat and when I eat.LOL...Here's a general discription of what I eat...A lot and at the wrong times!..LOL I really appreciate the offer, but I don't want to waste your time, yet..I try for alot of raw veggies and proteins.

[xamilo]

Ok mate. Anyway I'm here to help in case you need anything...

[Manavs]

Originally Posted by mont86

I have heard that putting on muscle burns fat.

Is that because muscle replaces fat, burns fat or the fact you have to work out to build muscles burns calories..

And how does cardio work into that? I have heard more muscle is better then cardio.

This is my kinda question!!!

putting on muscle burns fat, yes this is true and heres why.

to maintain (just maintain) a pound worth of muscle on your body, that pound requires 69 calories.

conversely to maintain a pound of fat on your body, that pound requires only 4 calories.

so the more muscle you carry on your body the leaner you will be because the body will be scavenging any and all available sources of energy within its grasp - ie love handles.

based on this basic truth, any calorie restrictive diet will fail in the long run. because the body will start to stop feeding the "calorie expensive" muscles and just store fat.

the second part of your question - technicaly cardiovascular work is not optimal for lowering your body fat % as it can lead to burning glycogen stores and shrinking muscles. rather aerobic work - can be done for a longer duration to burn fat stores as its primary source of fuel.

the difference is speed - walking slowly burns fat stores, running/sprinting burns glycogen stores.

hope that helps the burning fat question. now building muscles is another thing all together =)

[xamilo]

I don't agree with some of your ideas.

1. More muscle doesn't mean less fat. One great example are the Yokozunas (Great Sumo Cahmpions) who carry along gargantual amounts of muscle and fat combined. The reasson behind this is you pack muscle at the same time you pack on fat. That's why a basic Body Builder routine consists of a cycle of fat-muscle packing followed by a "burning cycle". You can't pack muscle without packing fat unfortunately.

2. Your body doesn't use fat as main energy source unless starving. The basic fuel for the body is stored glycogen followed by, yes, muscle tissue. Stored fat is only used after two weeks of low calorie intake approximately That's why, again, on a Body Builder "burning cycle" they expect to loose on a ratio of 60% fat-40% muscle.

3. I quote you: "based on this basic truth, any calorie restrictive diet will fail in the long run. because the body will start to stop feeding the "calorie expensive" muscles and just store fat."

False. First, its not a basic "truth", since it is not truth at all, and any weight loosing plan NEEDS a restriction in calorie intake (e.i. ingesting less caliries than you use). That's jut the basic nutrition works on.

4. Quoting you again: "The second part of your question - technicaly cardiovascular work is not optimal for lowering your body fat % as it can lead to burning glycogen stores and shrinking muscles. rather aerobic work - can be done for a longer duration to burn fat stores as its primary source of fuel."

Cardiovascular workout is a type of Aerobic workout. An intensity of 60-70% IS OPTIMAL for lowering body fat. Explosive energy as the one you need for lifting weights is in fact the easiest way to burn glycogen since its the fastest acting energy source in your body. Low -Mid intensity training for a minimum of 30-35 continuous minutes is the easiest way for a long term fat burning, accompanied by the increase in metabolism it creates as stated in the 2008 Guidelines on weight lose published my the American Association of Clinical Endochrynologist.

4. The difference is not in speed, is in intensity. For a trained athlete a 65% Maximum Heart Rate can be achieved only by running, while for a 65 year old untrained guy with a cardiac problem a normal walking pace can be considered a cardiovascular training. As well, if you increase the resistance, a "walking pace" can become a high-end cardiovascular raining for an Iron Man Competitor. The idea is to keep the intensity on a mid scale (60% of your MHR) for a fat burning process

Cheers...

[Manavs]

Originally Posted by xamilo

I don't agree with some of your ideas.

these arent my ideas, and demonstration is the ultimate key to this ie what someone looks like. do you know how to get your muscles bigger while widdling away the fat that surrounds it?? then hopping onstage infront of others in nothing but a pair of posing trunks to show what you KNOW? i've done it and ive taught others to do it. i think that is the ultimate in demonstration.

and if you were to attempt this who would you go to? some academia type that has all the book knowledge or someone whose done it? and experienced it? like a bodybuilder.

im not here to give false information, but i will gladly defend the truth, and share my knowledge, observations and thoughts for the benefit of others.

Everything i've said is based on scientific fact and more importantly demonstratable that i will gladly do my best show.

Originally Posted by xamilo

1. More muscle doesn't mean less fat. One great example are the Yokozunas (Great Sumo Cahmpions) who carry along gargantual amounts of muscle and fat combined. The reasson behind this is you pack muscle at the same time you pack on fat. That's why a basic Body Builder routine consists of a cycle of fat-muscle packing followed by a "burning cycle". You can't pack muscle without packing fat unfortunately.

Let me ask you how what do you think the % of muscle to % of fat is on those big boys??? they have a ton of muscle and are "relatively" lean for that size. most are 350 lbs yes? their only around 15-20% bodyfat. thats still 280+ lbs of lean muscle. that needs a lot of protein to maintain.

Your view of a bodybuilders diet is a little over simplified. some of these guys "bulk up" to 6-8% bodyfat only to be 1-2% on stage. Your making it sound like they get to 30% fat.

GOOD bodybuilders (good being the key) actually eat more when they are dieting. now why is that? its to preserve the muscles. I have 135lbs girls eating 500grams of protein a day all the way up to a show. they have so much muscle that if they DONT eat they will shrink.

when Dorian Yates won his 7 mr olympia's, his diet year round was 4500 calories, when he started dieting he kept the calorie count THE SAME but ate a higher percentage of protein, and lowered the % fat and carbs. (macro nutrient manipulation within a consistent calorie count)

using a sumo wrestlers diet is ridiculous as an analogy. but since you did, next time you go for a feeding of theirs look at how many protein calories they eat, then figure out how much they over eat. and how often they have to eat. if they dont eat they shrink. they need to keep feeding those big muscles. they just decide not to eat clean and overeat carbs and fat, therefore the body fat stores (which THEY NEED!) they're not looking to be lean, just big. our friend here was simply asking does having more muscle increase fat burning. and yes it does!

use michael phelps - 6'4" 174lbs 2% bf, 10,000 calories a day. very low body fat, high protein requirement. if he didnt eat that much his muscles would shrink.

i can show you dozens of my natural clients (because once we start talking chemically enhanced its a different set of rules) of mine that increase muscle mass while dieting for a show. One of my clients went from 160 to 121, her lean muscle mass went from 97lbs to 112lbs eating 6 meals a day! so she technically got more muscular and dropped body fat - why? because she gained more muscle mass.

Originally Posted by xamilo

2. Your body doesn't use fat as main energy source unless starving. The basic fuel for the body is stored glycogen followed by, yes, muscle tissue. Stored fat is only used after two weeks of low calorie intake approximately That's why, again, on a Body Builder "burning cycle" they expect to loose on a ratio of 60% fat-40% muscle.

You havent heard of a ketogenic diet? or gluconeogenesis? if you knew about bodybuilding as you refer too, you would know that the body in the absence of carbohydrates takes 3 days, not 14, to utilize ketones for the brain, and converts amino acids via gluconeogenesis into glycogen. the beauty of this diet (unlike the carb cycleing) is that the body only converts what it needs into glycogen, and you cannot run into the danger of over feeding the glycogen stores and storing the excess as body fat.

to be specific in your statement, your body doesnt want to use fat as the main source, but it will if you deprive it of carbs.

and if your body was starving, first it will eat your muscles away as they're energy demand is so high and a great source of protein, then hold onto fat until it had no choice. but we're not talking about starvation diets.

Dr. Scott Connelly talks exactly about this here http://www.musculardevelopment.com/p...umbo122208.mp3
and
listen at 1:04:40-1:07:50.

Originally Posted by xamilo

3. I quote you: "based on this basic truth, any calorie restrictive diet will fail in the long run. because the body will start to stop feeding the "calorie expensive" muscles and just store fat."

False. First, its not a basic "truth", since it is not truth at all, and any weight loosing plan NEEDS a restriction in calorie intake (e.i. ingesting less caliries than you use). That's jut the basic nutrition works on.

your false in believing the premise that a calorie is a calorie. this is incorrect. i will cite you the study, (i have the audio but have to find the research paper)

if a caloric restrictive diet worked, then we should all go to jenny craig, weight watchers, and nutrasystem. those never work LONG TERM. remember aushwitz worked too as a weight loss system. we're looking at decreasing bf as a %.

a calorie is not a calorie. Dr. Scott Connelly of met-rx fame, now progenix was recently on Heavy Muscle Radio talking how a clinical study done with normal people who were asked to do nothing differently but add 2 shakes a day over the course of 6 month. there were 3 shakes - placebo, soy protein, and whey protein concentrate (WPC). this is an increase 300 calories per day every day for 6 months. apprx a total of 7000 calories increase!

after the study was completed the group eating the WPC repartitioned their bodies the most by increasing muscle mass and lost pure fat just by eating more protein. the other two were not significant changes.

Here is the radio show/ talk about the study - Dr Connelly again.

http://www.musculardevelopment.com/p...umbo120108.mp3
starts at 48:03-51:00 - it keeps going after 51:00 but its good stuff after that til 54:30

but more importantly than some clinical study, every bodybuilder whose worth anything knows to eat more protein cause protein means repair amino acids, and the fat or carbohydrates are just energy used for that repair process. deprive the body of an external energy source it will now start burning fat off your body, ONLY given a high protein intake.

Otherwise your theory cannot explain how i took a 175lbs 25%+ bodyfat female and got her on stage at 134lbs eating 500g protein, and 4000 calories a day.

Originally Posted by xamilo

4. Quoting you again: "The second part of your question - technicaly cardiovascular work is not optimal for lowering your body fat % as it can lead to burning glycogen stores and shrinking muscles. rather aerobic work - can be done for a longer duration to burn fat stores as its primary source of fuel."

Cardiovascular workout is a type of Aerobic workout. An intensity of 60-70% IS OPTIMAL for lowering body fat. Explosive energy as the one you need for lifting weights is in fact the easiest way to burn glycogen since its the fastest acting energy source in your body. Low -Mid intensity training for a minimum of 30-35 continuous minutes is the easiest way for a long term fat burning, accompanied by the increase in metabolism it creates as stated in the 2008 Guidelines on weight lose published my the American Association of Clinical Endochrynologist.

4. The difference is not in speed, is in intensity. For a trained athlete a 65% Maximum Heart Rate can be achieved only by running, while for a 65 year old untrained guy with a cardiac problem a normal walking pace can be considered a cardiovascular training. As well, if you increase the resistance, a "walking pace" can become a high-end cardiovascular raining for an Iron Man Competitor. The idea is to keep the intensity on a mid scale (60% of your MHR) for a fat burning process

Cheers...

we're in agreement here. but what we deem as cardio is heart and lung training which is usually weight training, sprinting or running. also known as anerobic training ie glycogen depleting things.

aerobic training is what your saying 60-70% OR LESS sometime 55% - basically like i said ie - walking, its not a simple as those american association of clinical endo's said. also remember they're usually fat out of shape non athletes with less lean muscle tissue themselves.

Xamillo,

I hope i've been able to get some points across for your benefit. I don't blame you for believing what we've all been taught. but i stand before you here having done this many different ways, and can build muscle while decreasing fat at the same time, utilizing the increase in muscle mass as a fat burning engine.

Respectfully, and sincerely -
Michael

[xamilo]

these arent my ideas, and demonstration is the ultimate key to this ie what someone looks like. do you know how to get your muscles bigger while widdling away the fat that surrounds it??then hopping onstage infront of others in nothing but a pair of posing trunks to show what you KNOW? i've done it and ive taught others to do it. i think that is the ultimate in demonstration.

and if you were to attempt this who would you go to? some academia type that has all the book knowledge or someone whose done it? and experienced it? like a bodybuilder.

Well, you are right, I don’t have experience as a Body Builder myself.
I am just the “academia type guy” you talk bout who just holds a Medical Degree, a MSc in Metabolic and Nutrition, and worked with the Iron Man Contest Preparation and the Canada’s Bodybuilding Association.
So yes, I would go for the Academia Type Guy who ha searched and studied and knows of medical Studies and research rather than the Bodybuilder who has the “experience”.


Your view of a bodybuilders diet is a little over simplified. some of these guys "bulk up" to 6-8% bodyfat only to be 1-2% on stage. Your making it sound like they get to 30% fat. >

1-2% Body Fat is absolutely incompatible with life. A Body Builder on Stage holds around 5-6% Body Fat, and can sustain such levels for no longer than a couple of weeks.
There are lots of methods for measuring Body Fat, and each of them except for an Archimedes Chamber is biased. The British Journal of Nutrition has a study about accuracy in body fat measuring which you might find interesting. I don’t have the link with me, but you should look for it. Its is due on 2006 if I ain’t wrong.


GOOD bodybuilders (good being the key) actually eat more when they are dieting. now why is that? its to preserve the muscles. I have 135lbs girls eating 500grams of protein a day all the way up to a show. they have so much muscle that if they DONT eat they will shrink.
Eating 500g of protein a day for a 135lb girl will only make her have the worst kidney problems in the future. Getting more than 2.5g protein per pound is absolutely contraindicated, and any decent endocrinologist will tell you so. If that is what you are giving your “trainees” I would suggest you consult a doctor before continuing such insane diet. I agree you ned to feed muscle, but that is just not the proportion to do so mate, I’m sorry.

when Dorian Yates won his 7 mr olympia's, his diet year round was 4500 calories, when he started dieting he kept the calorie count THE SAME but ate a higher percentage of protein, and lowered the % fat and carbs. (macro nutrient manipulation within a consistent calorie count)

Yes, that can be perfectly done when you are on hormone / testosterone therapy. For most real people in the world, that is not the case.

use michael phelps - 6'4" 174lbs 2% bf, 10,000 calories a day. very low body fat, high protein requirement. if he didnt eat that much his muscles would shrink.

I quote one of my professors, Dr. Mark Klion (Orthopedic Surgeon and Sports Medicine) from the Mount Sinai Center:
“If you eat fewer calories than you burn exercising, you lose weight. But an athlete like Phelps, who exercises up a storm, has to worry about eating enough to replenish the scads of calories he’s burned. If he doesn’t, Klion explains, his “body won’t recover, the muscles will not recover, there will not be adequate energy stored for him to compete in his next event.”

You can’t compare an average guy with a guy like Michael Phelps, that is ridiculous. And no, he doesn't hold 2% body fat. 2% body fat is just what covers your internal organs to avoid injury.

You havent heard of a ketogenic diet? or gluconeogenesis?
Yes. Its about the worst thing you can do to an organism. It has more side effects than mixing Cocaine with Alcohol

if you knew about bodybuilding as you refer too, you would know that the body in the absence of carbohydrates takes 3 days, not 14, to utilize ketones for the brain, and converts amino acids via gluconeogenesis into glycogen.

Oh God.
Ketones don’t come from brown peripheric adipose tissue, just for you to know. There is fat breackage, but its minimal compared to muscle break down when fasting.
Muscle breakage as energy goes through Cori’s Cycle and Urea Cycle way before you start gluconeogenesis. Ned to read a little bit on that issue mate.

a calorie is not a calorie. Dr. Scott Connelly of met-rx fame, now progenix was recently on Heavy Muscle Radio talking how a clinical study done with normal people who were asked to do nothing differently but add 2 shakes a day over the course of 6 month. there were 3 shakes - placebo, soy protein, and whey protein concentrate (WPC). this is an increase 300 calories per day every day for 6 months. apprx a total of 7000 calories increase!

How about you start searching on Pubmed for serious medical journals like the American Encochrinology Journal the British Journal of Nutrition or any of the kind who are listed in Class AAA, AA or A journals? Really mate, Muscle Development magazine is not particularly aceepted in the Medical wolrd, you know?

When you are a doctor who is being financed by a company like Met-Rx you surely are a little bit biased...]

we're in agreement here. but what we deem as cardio is heart and lung training which is usually weight training, sprinting or running. also known as anerobic training ie glycogen depleting things.

Nope. Cardiovascular training is an aerobic training, not an anaerobic.

basically like i said ie - walking, its not a simple as those american association of clinical endo's said. also remember they're usually fat out of shape non athletes with less lean muscle tissue themselves.

Yeah, those ridiculous guys who have only devoted their life’s studying and researching those things shouldn’t be taken into account at all. What do they know, right? But yes, that is a common answer when you show evidence to some body builders. "What do you know if I have packed 50lbs more muscle than you have?". Not the first time I get that response. Dolly (Not giving the surname), Ms Canada, told me the exact same thing when we started working some years ago. Funny the Pro Am finally changed her attitude and started winning some serious Pro competitions...

I hope i've been able to get some points across for your benefit. I don't blame you for believing what we've all been taught. but i stand before you here having done this many different ways, and can build muscle while decreasing fat at the same time, utilizing the increase in muscle mass as a fat burning engine.

As you say, I don’t blame you for believing what you’ve been taught, but I do encourage you to go further on your investigations before assuming you are right on what you say just because Joe Weider said so.

You can’t build muscle and decrease fat at the same time That is just the basic of nutrition. You might be able to “virually” increase muscle size due to edema, and water absorption, but muscle fiber hypertrophy and fat burning is just a Metabolic contradiction we ridiculous guys who spend time researching have proven to be mistaken.

Anyway, I think we are getting out of the topic, so, if you want to further discuss, or anyone here has any further questions, you can refer to the forum at www.hardcorebodybulding.com (I know Sling!! Sorry for the spam!!! You can delete this if you want!!!!)
There you will find a forum we put up with some Bodybuilding Pros I have worked with and you might find some of the info moving there quite interesting.

I ain't posting anything else here, since I have no intention on discussing, and this is about to become trouble, I can sense it...

So, let’s continue and talk about golf here….

[FATC1TY]

I like pizza.

[Manavs]

Xamillo -

congratulations on your medical degree. which is why i can totally understand your viewpoint on this.

this is in the offtopic section, so i have no problem discussing this further - with civility -

a few points
- met-rx did not pay dr scott connelly, he founded met-rx then sold it

- he has appeared on muscular development's radio show among others and im hoping you took the time to listen to what he said rather than where he said it.

- the bf measuring tests that you speak of are what i am referring to as well. when jay cutler turned to the rear at this years mr o, you could see kidney function! he was in the 1-2% range, not for weeks, but hours to days. i didnt say it was healthy but definitely achievable. as dangerous as it may sound to you, i do know what these professionals do on that stage. its scary.

-bodybuilding is not a healthy sport - i know this - but despite it i understand the action/reaction principles of the body to get a competitor ready

- 500g of protein does create alot of toxic waste but it also makes a great physique - again its not healthy, i didnt say it was, just that it works.

-in the absence of ketogenic diets explain to me how man got to the year 2009? one example are eskimos - they survived on fish and no carbs.

-there are no essential carbohydrates, but there are essential fatty acids

and FATC1TY i love pizza

[xamilo]

Originally Posted by FATC1TY

I like pizza.

I like BBQ Pork Ribs....

[SilverUberXeno]

Purely as an observation, I must say that some people have success in doing what they intend to do without actually knowing why it's happening.

Members of this board have sworn, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary, that they are actually driving the ball down against the ground with their iron shots. Their defense was, "Well I'm a (x) handicap, what are you!? So there!"

Achievement of a goal doesn't NECESSARILY mean you know how you managed to do it. Certainly doesn't mean it was an accident either, though. But "I've done it" is not surefire credibility.

I'm also a bit hesitant to follow any regimen put forth which is meant solely to "build muscle." I feel like it's too easy to build muscle at the expense of other bodily systems. Xam's reference to kidney damage is a very real one. A "protein overdose" can absolutely damage the kidneys, but hey, it builds a lot of muscle!

Naturally, I would side with MDs who specialize in sports medicine and nutrition, because their scope is broader than just "building muscle." It tends to be that these people are for the overall health of the human organism, not the overall muscle mass of that organism.

[Manavs]

Originally Posted by SilverUberXeno

Purely as an observation, I must say that some people have success in doing what they intend to do without actually knowing why it's happening.

Members of this board have sworn, in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary, that they are actually driving the ball down against the ground with their iron shots. Their defense was, "Well I'm a (x) handicap, what are you!? So there!"

Achievement of a goal doesn't NECESSARILY mean you know how you managed to do it. Certainly doesn't mean it was an accident either, though. But "I've done it" is not surefire credibility.

I'm also a bit hesitant to follow any regimen put forth which is meant solely to "build muscle." I feel like it's too easy to build muscle at the expense of other bodily systems. Xam's reference to kidney damage is a very real one. A "protein overdose" can absolutely damage the kidneys, but hey, it builds a lot of muscle!

Naturally, I would side with MDs who specialize in sports medicine and nutrition, because their scope is broader than just "building muscle." It tends to be that these people are for the overall health of the human organism, not the overall muscle mass of that organism.

I can totally understand your hesitancy and looking for the safest way to do something. but believing that the medical community is the one with the answers isn't the case. remember in essence they get paid to keep you sick.

building muscle is one of the more difficult things to do, and to build it in to an extreme is one of the most challenging things one can do.

I dont want to come off this thread in looking that i take everyone and try to make them into mr olympias at the price of peoples kidneys.

Protein overdose i believe is the least of peoples problems - eating 1g per bodyweight is the minimum people should get just for organ function. 1.5 g per lb of bodyweight if your an athelete and more if your a BODYBUILDER esp a professional.

the general public should be more concerned with their refined sugar intake, alcohol, cigarette, and excessive eating than protein intake.