How many calories do MTBers burn?

[Neil]

longer and steady state is better for fat

Using fat as a primary fuel source during exercise, I'll grant you.

And that sounds very seductive. But in the big scheme of things, on an ongoing basis, it matters not one jot.

What really matters, is exercise that burns sufficient calories, that individuals find tolerable - or even (odd though it may sound) enjoyable.

Edit : But I dont agree with "there's little to nothing really in it." comment.

That's because you fall in to the trap of thinking it's significant how the energy for exercise is sourced.

It's not.

Same for ketogenic diets.

It's just smoke.

What really matters, at the end of the day is calories-in vs calories out - because even if you've spent plenty of time either forcing your body into ketosis, or making your body use fat as an energy source whilst exercising, if you still take in more calories than you expend, any surplus will still get stored as bodyfat.

Your right, really high intensity cant utilize fat quickly enough, so
the system get topped up by protein and glycogen which are stored in the muscles and liver.
.

What matters more, is expending more, than your burning, trying to sustain a reasonable metabolic rate / hormone balance, and sufficient dietery needs to maintain lbm whilst losing weight.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that how the energy is sourced for exercise matters a damn.

 

[RobMac]

Are you telling me that your body can effectively convert fat into fuel whether low intensity or high intensity?

"If you still take in more calories than you expend, any surplus will still get stored as bodyfat."


Thats kinda stating the obvious :?

.

 

[Neil]

Are you telling me that your body can effectively convert fat into fuel whether low intensity or high intensity?
.

I'm telling you no such thing.

What I am telling you is that it doesn't matter what energy source your body uses when exercising.

Because what really matters is the balance of calories. Too many, surplus will be some fat stored. Too little, and there will be some fat loss.

As to how that's partitioned, well it rather depends on stimulus / need, and type of intake.

The idea that the fuel source matters, and the "myth" of the fat burning zone, are just a big crock, and a big 1980s style pseudo-science, that really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things - as I said, just like diets that push your body into ketosis. There's no metabolic advantage from it - it's just fool's gold.

Think of it like this - some people trying to lose weight, and some athletes, don't do any steady-state or aerobic, or "fat-burning" exercise, as such. Some prefer to exercise or train in a way that provides demands of their muscles in terms of adaptations to either provide strength, or build - or at least retain - muscular size. That with sufficient protein intake, when being under maintenance, calorie-wise, is quite a reasonble approach to losing weight, preserving lbm, and reducing bodyfat.

 

[Neil]

"If you still take in more calories than you expend, any surplus will still get stored as bodyfat."


Thats kinda stating the obvious :?

.

Which is why it doesn't really matter about the source of energy whilst exercising - which is what you've been arguing against.

It doesn't - because of the "obvious" that's stated, that you appear to agree with.

 

[perry]

Cheers chaps . Other than what's going over my head a bit it basically comes down to take more out than you put in . Sadly the other half never understands this when I tell her .

Does that make calorie counting more important than I gave it credit for ? If at the very basic , non athlete , just want to be a bit better all round in general health scheme of things level ?

I pass it on ( copy and paste )

 

[Neil]

Cheers chaps . Other than what's going over my head a bit it basically comes down to take more out than you put in . Sadly the other half never understands this when I tell her .

Does that make calorie counting more important than I gave it credit for ? If at the very basic , non athlete , just want to be a bit better all round in general health scheme of things level ?

I pass it on ( copy and paste )

I'd say on balance, getting a reasonably accurate feel for calories consumed, rather than being absolute or obsessive about it, is probably the best approach.

However, if you've only got reasonably minor amounts to lose, then minor adjustments in food that has little helping the situation - either that, or slightly more activity is a better approach.

It's only where more notable changes in either weight or body-composition are desired or needed, that you need to be more analytical and detailed.

 

[RobMac]

Cheers chaps . Other than what's going over my head a bit it basically comes down to take more out than you put in . Sadly the other half never understands this when I tell her .

Does that make calorie counting more important than I gave it credit for ? If at the very basic , non athlete , just want to be a bit better all round in general health scheme of things level ?

I pass it on ( copy and paste )

Dont worry Perry its all a smoke screen
BTW Ketosis is just a fancy name for the body burning fat for energy.

.

 

[RobMac]

Neil we could have a brilliant conversation over a few Low Cal beers in a manly kinda way


Cheers Rob

.

 

[Neil]

Dont worry Perry its all a smoke screen
BTW Ketosis is just a fancy name for the body burning fat for energy.
.

You see where I was coming from with that, though?

If you postulate that it's important to use fat as an energy source whilst exercising - why not go all the way, and suggest that as a consequence, it makes sense to try and make the body use fat as an energy source (by merit of dietary intake and macronutrient breakdown) for everything - since surely using fat as an energy source makes sense for those wanting to lose weight / bodyfat?

Many subscribe to that.

But, like the fabled "fat burning zone" for exercise, it isn't compelling.

Ketogenic diets make sense for many: it can help epileptics, it can help people with satiety, it can help people with certain forms of diabetes, it can help people with insulin resistance and other hormonal issues, it can help ensuring a good amount of protein intake in assisting in retaining as much lbm / muscle as possible, and it can help people who want to believe in magic and think there's something special about it, that helps them stick to a diet.

Outside of that and the roman roads, though, the idea of fat as an energy source distracts people from what really matters - the balance of expenditure with calories in, and calories out. There's no other compelling reason or metabolic advantage of note.

Where body recomposition is concerned - or as a generalism, what most people want, is to lose as much fat, and retain as much lbm or muscle as possible.

Now here's the punchline - with those goals in mind, when losing weight, one of the key things is to encourage that biological imperative that the body still needs to retain as much muscle as possible, whilst losing weight. And that won't normally happen (outside of the normally very inactive, people with very little current muscle development) if you're exercising lightly, to stay within the mythical "fat burning zone". That'll happen by using stimulus that encourages the body to realise the need that muscle strength and development are still required, by exerting the muscles (rather than mainly the cardiovascular system), and conducive dietary protein to support them.

So over time, once the balance of intake vs expenditure is realised, trying to encourage the body to retain as much lbm as possible at the expense of bodyfat (and maybe some water) is probably what most active people want. Unless people just want to simply shed weight and they're entirely unconcerned what type of body tissue is lost.

 

[Neil]

Neil we could have a brilliant conversation over a few Low Cal beers in a manly kinda way

Cheers Rob

.

Not really sure how to take that? ;-)

I'm a little way away from Fife, though, so probably not the easiest option.

And I'm just putting this out there... I am married


...yes, I know, some say it's the biggest closet