|
Big Turk
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2009, 05:02:24 PM » |
|
i'm quite big and i have a body fat% of 15 % with 220pounds mass.
if you want 15% with 250 pounds....How big are you??
[/quote]
Zim, since you asked....I calculate my current BF to be between 27-28%. Current weight=300pds. Current waistline=48" My goal is to reach 250 pounds and 10-15% BF. I have a large frame so I'm hoping to accomplish this goal. Do you think 10-15% is too ambitious? Should I target a higher BF goal?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cookie Monster
|
|
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2009, 05:17:51 PM » |
|
those are different values than i posted.
50-60% = 85% fat
80-90% = 15% fat
in these values, let's assume the first burns 500 kcals, and the second... 2750 lol
they burn the same amount of calories in fat. according to this theory of course.
the 2750 calorie number is irrealistic, obviously, but just make that math, and you'll see that to burn the same amount of cals in fat it'd have to be that wacky.
to make a strong point about the different numbers would be essential, i reckon.
"i shall not be forsaken!" - said this post. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
needyourlovintonight
|
|
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2009, 10:30:52 PM » |
|
Wow! I did not expect that Evil! +Karma.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sonofheaven
|
|
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2009, 11:04:43 PM » |
|
Cookie, you ignore the fact your body refills the stores of carbohydrates after the excersise by converting fat to carbs. Evil, you also miss this in your equation.
Your body will always aims for a certain amount of circulating glucose in your blood. If its too low, it will convert fat to carbs(this takes a while though). So if you do intenser excersise you will always lose more fat. Downside is when glucose level in your blood gets low, you cant sustain the excersise. It also gets you more hungry so you might be tempted to refill this with aquarius or other sports drinks...
But if you have half an hour, aim to do it as intense as possible, you will burn more fat.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Doing 3 X 10 pullups
Losing 10 kilos
Show abs
Get shoe size 48
|
|
|
|
Doomsday
|
|
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2009, 11:35:44 PM » |
|
Cookie, you ignore the fact your body refills the stores of carbohydrates after the excersise by converting fat to carbs. Evil, you also miss this in your equation.
Your body will always aims for a certain amount of circulating glucose in your blood. If its too low, it will convert fat to carbs(this takes a while though). So if you do intenser excersise you will always lose more fat. Downside is when glucose level in your blood gets low, you cant sustain the excersise. It also gets you more hungry so you might be tempted to refill this with aquarius or other sports drinks...
But if you have half an hour, aim to do it as intense as possible, you will burn more fat.
thou has given me Hope! i love 30min intense workouts! feel better and minimum time spent! Pls confirm this analysis Evil dude! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doomsday
|
|
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2009, 11:44:35 PM » |
|
50-70% = 85% fat, 10% carbs, 5% protein
70-80% = 50% fat, 50% carbs
80-90% = 85% carbs, 15% fat
90-100% = 90% fat, 10% carbs (i think, not sure about this last one)
high intensity workouts = 90% fat burn! Awesome! ?? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 11:49:07 PM by Doomsday »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cookie Monster
|
|
« Reply #36 on: October 28, 2009, 03:04:20 AM » |
|
errmm, sorry, i was drunk on cookies when i posted that. fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Evilcyber
|
|
« Reply #37 on: October 28, 2009, 07:06:38 AM » |
|
Cookie, you ignore the fact your body refills the stores of carbohydrates after the excersise by converting fat to carbs. Evil, you also miss this in your equation. What you refer to is called "ketogenesis" - the body transforming fat into ketones to replace glucose. I didn't miss this; I simply can't get that in depth in an eight minute video. Your body will always aims for a certain amount of circulating glucose in your blood. If its too low, it will convert fat to carbs(this takes a while though). So if you do intenser excersise you will always lose more fat. Downside is when glucose level in your blood gets low, you cant sustain the excersise. It also gets you more hungry so you might be tempted to refill this with aquarius or other sports drinks...
But if you have half an hour, aim to do it as intense as possible, you will burn more fat. Well, this is basically what I said in the video, isn't it?  However, I'd wager that you won't deplete your glucose and glycogen with 30 minutes of running two or three times a week. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zim
|
|
« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2009, 07:08:03 AM » |
|
i'm quite big and i have a body fat% of 15 % with 220pounds mass.
if you want 15% with 250 pounds....How big are you??
Zim, since you asked....I calculate my current BF to be between 27-28%. Current weight=300pds. Current waistline=48" My goal is to reach 250 pounds and 10-15% BF. I have a large frame so I'm hoping to accomplish this goal. Do you think 10-15% is too ambitious? Should I target a higher BF goal? [/quote] i don't think so at all! 15% is managable... further than that, its hard for me personally to lower my bodyfat, but i think this has something to do with my eating habits, so i don't see a reason you shouldn't be able. My hopes go like this: If my lean bodymass increases, my calorie needs will rise and thus my bodyfat will decrease, so maybe i reach the 12% sometimes (which would be okay for me...) Anyways i'm quite satisfied with my 15%, i have a light sixpack with the right lightning and i look and feel lean, so thats not a big deal for me.... but you didn't answer my question, you got to be huge? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Goals:
5 pull-ups with good form
Bench 220lbs for 10 times
reduce bodyfat to 10-12%
|
|
|
|
sonofheaven
|
|
« Reply #39 on: October 28, 2009, 11:05:23 AM » |
|
No, I am actually talking about gluconeogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GluconeogenesisOfc, you wont deplete your energy reserves in 30 minutes. All I am saying is that the body aims for a steady state of carbohydrates and people shouldn´t think of fat and carbs as seperate things. They are in a constant equilibrium. Best analogy I find is a savings account and a normal account. It really doesn´t make a difference where you withdraw your money from, It´s the ammount spent that matters. If you take 100 euro/dollar with your card, and later transfer it from your savings account to your normal one, or go to the bank and take it directly from your savings account, it will still be 100 euro/dollar you have less. Same goes with carbs/fat. It really doesn´t make a difference if you take 90% of the energy from carbs and later refill it by converting fat to glucose or take it directly from your fat stores, in the end all that matters is the ammount you spend. I do know its basically what you are saying, |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Doing 3 X 10 pullups
Losing 10 kilos
Show abs
Get shoe size 48
|
|
|
|
Evilcyber
|
|
« Reply #40 on: October 28, 2009, 01:15:15 PM » |
|
No, I am actually talking about gluconeogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GluconeogenesisOfc, you wont deplete your energy reserves in 30 minutes. All I am saying is that the body aims for a steady state of carbohydrates and people shouldn´t think of fat and carbs as seperate things. They are in a constant equilibrium. Best analogy I find is a savings account and a normal account. It really doesn´t make a difference where you withdraw your money from, It´s the ammount spent that matters. If you take 100 euro/dollar with your card, and later transfer it from your savings account to your normal one, or go to the bank and take it directly from your savings account, it will still be 100 euro/dollar you have less. Same goes with carbs/fat. It really doesn´t make a difference if you take 90% of the energy from carbs and later refill it by converting fat to glucose or take it directly from your fat stores, in the end all that matters is the ammount you spend. I do know its basically what you are saying, Well, it's not fat that is converted to glucose. Fat is converted to ketones. Basically, when you restrict your energy intake to below maintenance, you will at some point break down fat cells ("lipolysis"), because your body needs the ketones as replacement for lacking glucose. It's also at this point where gluconeogenesis can't make up for the lacking amount of glucose. This is how you lose weight. Fat and carbohydrates also are not the same thing. If they were then ketogenic diets, like the Atkins Diet, may not be as controversial regarding possible health risks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uglok
|
|
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2009, 08:11:47 AM » |
|
so if the calorie deficiency is 3500Kcal at the end of the week, but its due to the 80% heart beat thingy, the fat lost in the week will be 15% of the 3500Kcal ?!
Where it comes from is irrelevant - think of it as the 'burnt carbs' if you will would have become fat anyway. I have some bones to pick over this as although I agree about the sentiments of this it does give a misleading message. Of course someone running at 80% will burn more Calories than an identical person running for the same duration at 50%. But that's exactly it - people can keep up 50% as a sustainable pace for much longer than if they were running at 80%, and that's where the overall idea behind modearate-intensity-long-time being better than higher-intensity-short-time for fat loss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Evilcyber
|
|
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2009, 08:16:14 AM » |
|
That's true, Uglok. But most likely people who run to lose weight do so for 30-60 minutes and with that short a duration it is in my opinion most important to get high intensity out of it to maximize burned energy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marine475
Fiendish evil monkey.
Regular Gnome
Reputation Power: 6
Posts: 484
|
|
« Reply #43 on: November 02, 2009, 08:42:52 AM » |
|
so if the calorie deficiency is 3500Kcal at the end of the week, but its due to the 80% heart beat thingy, the fat lost in the week will be 15% of the 3500Kcal ?!
Where it comes from is irrelevant - think of it as the 'burnt carbs' if you will would have become fat anyway. I have some bones to pick over this as although I agree about the sentiments of this it does give a misleading message. Of course someone running at 80% will burn more Calories than an identical person running for the same duration at 50%. But that's exactly it - people can keep up 50% as a sustainable pace for much longer than if they were running at 80%, and that's where the overall idea behind modearate-intensity-long-time being better than higher-intensity-short-time for fat loss. If it didn't matter where the energy is coming from we wouldn't have pro athletes taking lactic acid blood tests, marathone runners constantly measuring heart rate and stuff like that. And anyway for fitness purpose you want to burn as much fat as possible, it's fat that make us fat not muscle glycogen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uglok
|
|
« Reply #44 on: November 02, 2009, 11:42:40 AM » |
|
If it didn't matter where the energy is coming from we wouldn't have pro athletes taking lactic acid blood tests, marathone runners constantly measuring heart rate and stuff like that. And anyway for fitness purpose you want to burn as much fat as possible, it's fat that make us fat not muscle glycogen.
I was talking about the every-day-person, not athletes that must consider such things to an extent. And that's just the wrong way to view it in my opinion. Don't forget, if you aren't getting carbohydrate use as energy for exercising - you won't be getting fat used either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA#Fatty_acid_metabolism |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
