For Open Minded Thinkers Only

[Juice Authority]

Thanks for the offer George, but as FS knows, I've already stated that I will not participate in any thread that includes JA, since his sole intention is to derail the thread, disrupt the conversation and heckle me whenever possible. I asked him twice not to come and this thread and he ignored it. I have already gone to post on AF and within minutes JA was on it harrassing me to the point where the thread had to be closed. Since he is a member there, I see nothing that would stop him from doing the same thing again.

My appologies to the members of both EF and AF.

Quit using me as an excuse you big baby. That's a cop out. I'll tell you what, if you go post this discussion over at AF, I'll keep my mouth shut. Instead of focusing in on me focus on responding to FS' points which you keep dancing around and avoiding altogether.

 

[variation]

Thx9000

But it is possible to gain muscle in a carb-depleted state, provided we take in enough protein and fat.

that is only because excess protein and fat will cause enough glucose conversion to trigger an insulin spike, without any significant amount if insulin you won't gain anything.

and as we know carbs -> glucose

glucose = insulin release

what I believe, though I'm not speaking for nelson, is that in a regular state we will use more fat for fuel, but during any kind of higher intensity exercise such as running etc.. if carbohydrates are not available more muscle will be oxidized as energy appose to fat, due to the fact that fat cannot be oxidized quickly enough to support a good steady flow of energy. so our body will use a more efficient source of energy 'muscle' which can be oxidized more quickly then fat.

 

[bbkingpin]

How do we know if one's experience is accurate?

This reminds me of Des Cartes ... It took a lot of thought before he was able to confirm just one thing ... "I think, therefore I am." (I had to read that for philosophy class in college ... excruciating.)

Nelson, your post is sort of hard to follow. How do we know if our experience is accurate??? All we know is what we saw, heard, thought, felt emotionally, touched, smelled, or tasted. It is how we interpret our experience that may be suspect. But not the experience itself. (Assuming we all have suficient mental capacity.)

But, as far as rational intelligent minds are concerned, there will usually only be one interpretation. "Reasonable minds." There are objective standards to the interpretation of a study, even if it is no more than "reasonable minds could not come to a different conclusion." (A legal concept for directing a verdict -- i.e., there's no point in sending it to the jury because if they are reasonably minded people they will only come to one result.)

This stuff is not as esoteric as people are making it out to be.

 

[thx9000]

FS,

I'm not actually trying to support the idea that "the body burns muscle before it burns fat."


However...

I understood the contradiction that you think exists. But, you need more than "In the absence of carbs...the body will burn muscle first" and "The body burns muscle before it burns fat" to reach that contradition. You are assuming that NM meant that body will continue to burn muscle until there's none left BEFORE it moves on to using fat. However, he doesn't specify any length of time, we don't even know that the body will burn it's carbs first then move onto muscle we just know that it will burn muscle before fat in the absence of carbs. BUT it may just burn muscle for short period of time. Likewise, from the information provided, we don't even know how the body performs in the presence of carbs. Does it burn ALL the carbs first? Some carbs and some fat? Some carbs and muscle and fat...

 

[Fukkenshredded]

And exactly how do you know it burns muscle before fat in the absence of carbs? How do you explain the unchanged plasma glucose, and the retarding of muscular gluconeogenesis?

Not to mention the excess of fatty acids and fat metabolites found, which indicate that fat is being burned?

Where is your data showing that muscle is burned before fat? I have asked Nelson repeatedly to show us all something, anything, anywhere, that will support this widely held belief.

Again, in the real world experiences of all of us here...who has actually lost an amount of muscle that corresponds to the theory that muscle wasting occurs preferentially over fatburning?

Remember, one pound of muscle yields 600 calories of energy.

Also, would you please detail for us the actual process of protien burning? Show us how it is more efficient and more quickly oxidized, so we can find out what the preferred mechanism really is.

 

[Rio 2001]

An 8hs fast isn´t enough to deplete liver/muscle glycogen, but it is enough to create a favorable metabolic environment for fat burning.

If you were at a complete depletion state, you would burn BCAAs along with FFAs when exercising, and performance would suffer with the absence of carbos.

Long bouts of low intensity training in a low insulin/ high adrenalin/glucagon state will oxidate mostly FFAs, but the overall calorie expenditure will be small as well as the effect on RMR and TEA.

Glucose plasma level will be maintained through remaining glycogenolysis and neoglucogenesis from triglycerides, but if glycogen is far depleted, BCAAs will be used.

High intensity aerobic training ( >80% max VO2) will burn mostly carbs , even if you are in a 8 hs fasting state, that period is just not enough to deplete glycogen stores ( unless you are on a Keto diet).However, RMR and TEA will be increased and total calorie expenditure will be greater. There is enough carbo reserve left to energize such high intensity bouts, and there will be no significant protein breakdown. On top of spending more calories, you´ll burn fat for longer.

Enough carbo = performance
Low insulin high adrenalin/glucagon environment = fat loss
High intensity = higher RMR and lasting fat burning effects

There are studies on prolongued exercises and as the hours goes by and glycogen stores are depleted, fat oxidation increase( up to 80%), then protein breakdown begin to be more significant.

Doing the average cardio sessions on an empty stomach will not burn down your hard earned muscle, and guess what, with proper nutrition, protein synthesis will be even stimulated.You probably loose more nitrogen after a muscle-damaging grueling RESISTANCE training, through rhabdomyolisis, than with a cardio session.But then again, what happens AFTER is what counts.

Doing cardio sessions in a depleted NUTRITIONAL state ( very low caloric diets) will progressively loose efficiency, lower RMR and thermal effects, so watch out chubby people, because overtraining/undernutrition is a NO-NO.

I enjoy beginning my day with a great cardio session, 30 to 40 minutes, empty stomach , heavy sprints at the end. Body heats through the roof, I feel I carry the effects of training with me for HOURS after it took place.

 

[Fukkenshredded]

Excellent point, Rio.

 

[bbkingpin]

I never read the AM cardio thread. Let me just say that from real world experience, AM cardio does not burn muscle. It is amazing how much fat I have stripped off in so little time doing AM cardio or just cardio on an empty stomach (5-6 hrs after meals) without any strength loss, and that was without the use of AAS. Since I wasn't on AAS back then I used HMB and glutamine pre-cardio. But I don't know if that made a difference.

 

[Juice Authority]

I never read the AM cardio thread. Let me just say that from real world experience, AM cardio does not burn muscle. It is amazing how much fat I have stripped off in so little time doing AM cardio or just cardio on an empty stomach (5-6 hrs after meals) without any strength loss, and that was without the use of AAS. Since I wasn't on AAS back then I used HMB and glutamine pre-cardio. But I don't know if that made a difference.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=247580

It's actually a real good read minus Nelson's ignorance.

 

[thx9000]

And exactly how do you know it burns muscle before fat in the absence of carbs? How do you explain the unchanged plasma glucose, and the retarding of muscular gluconeogenesis?

Not to mention the excess of fatty acids and fat metabolites found, which indicate that fat is being burned?

Where is your data showing that muscle is burned before fat? I have asked Nelson repeatedly to show us all something, anything, anywhere, that will support this widely held belief.

Again, in the real world experiences of all of us here...who has actually lost an amount of muscle that corresponds to the theory that muscle wasting occurs preferentially over fatburning?

Remember, one pound of muscle yields 600 calories of energy.

Also, would you please detail for us the actual process of protien burning? Show us how it is more efficient and more quickly oxidized, so we can find out what the preferred mechanism really is.

Like I said, I am not trying to support his theory. I am just simply saying that IF they two statements you posted are really an accurate summary of what NM believes, THEN you are ASSUMING there is a contradiction. You are assuming that he is ALSO claiming that muscle gets burned exclusively in the absense of carbs and you are ASSUMING this state continues until all the muscle is gone. He doesn't say those two things...