Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below kitchenman
New member
Carth said:
you could probably burn tons of fat doing that
What should I do to burn fat without burning muscle?
- Thread starter Smokescreen
- Start date
you could probably burn tons of fat doing that
Synpax
Well-known member
aps1087 said:
You are a fucking moron.
For the ten zillionth time, there is a threshold at which point your body can no longer metabolize fat and must turn instead to glycogen that is stored in your muscles.
Once you reach that threshold, you are maximizing the amount of fat your body loses. Going beyond it doesn't increase the amount of fat your body metabolizes. It is at it's maximum.
It's similar to driving your car to is maximum natural speed - BEFORE You hit the nitro button.
This is usually at a comfortable, conversational pace.
This is science and is inexcapable regardless of what your personal experience might be telling you. Folks who say otherwise are either not accounting for something (IE - something that involves a needle) or aren't measuring properly.
I think I'm going to scan my VO2 Max test sheet so you can see the chemicals coming out of my mouth at the point where fat use levels off.
necr0potenc3
New member
I hope I can help a bit on this one. I'd like to thank the dudes who said that everyone responds differently to different stimuli. what works for some might not work for others and it might do wonders for a few others
on my own experience, HIIT has the best effect on losing fat and keeping the muscles. I used to do regular aerobics for 30 - 40 mins, 5x a week and I lost fat but also lost (lots) of muscle mass. I recommend regular aerobics to anyone desperate for losing fat but when it comes to my friends who also workout, I recommend HIIT
the simple explanation synpax gave is right. regular aerobics burns fat and sprints glycogen (it hurts when I put it like that). what he's ignoring is that our metabolism is FAR from linear
on regular aerobics, somewhere near the 20th minute your body gets into the fixed state. it is "adapted" to what you're currently doing, fat becomes the main fuel, caloric burn is decreased (optimized if you look at it from the energy conservation point of view) and hell, you can keep on going as long as you want if you control the intensity and the boredom. as soon as you stop what you're doing (lets say, the treadmil) and walk home, your body will quickly get back to burning the regular amount of calories and you'll feel "fresh". keeping your heart rate on the "fat burning zone" during the exercise optimizes fat burn, no doubt about that
on HIIT (sprints, etc..) the work is mainly anaerobic, fat is hardly involved during the exercise. what happens after the workout is the key, your metabolism gets accelerated
if you sum "caloric usage during exercise" with "caloric usage post exercise", HIIT beats the crap outta regular aerobics. with one you burn fat 8 hours, with the other for 40 minutes
I find it interesting you all ignore the hormonal responses! regular aerobics have a catabolic hormonal response (probably the main cause of the muscle loss). HIIT provokes an hormonal response very similar to weight training, anabolic in other words
on my own experience, HIIT has the best effect on losing fat and keeping the muscles. I used to do regular aerobics for 30 - 40 mins, 5x a week and I lost fat but also lost (lots) of muscle mass. I recommend regular aerobics to anyone desperate for losing fat but when it comes to my friends who also workout, I recommend HIIT
the simple explanation synpax gave is right. regular aerobics burns fat and sprints glycogen (it hurts when I put it like that). what he's ignoring is that our metabolism is FAR from linear
on regular aerobics, somewhere near the 20th minute your body gets into the fixed state. it is "adapted" to what you're currently doing, fat becomes the main fuel, caloric burn is decreased (optimized if you look at it from the energy conservation point of view) and hell, you can keep on going as long as you want if you control the intensity and the boredom. as soon as you stop what you're doing (lets say, the treadmil) and walk home, your body will quickly get back to burning the regular amount of calories and you'll feel "fresh". keeping your heart rate on the "fat burning zone" during the exercise optimizes fat burn, no doubt about that
on HIIT (sprints, etc..) the work is mainly anaerobic, fat is hardly involved during the exercise. what happens after the workout is the key, your metabolism gets accelerated
if you sum "caloric usage during exercise" with "caloric usage post exercise", HIIT beats the crap outta regular aerobics. with one you burn fat 8 hours, with the other for 40 minutes
I find it interesting you all ignore the hormonal responses! regular aerobics have a catabolic hormonal response (probably the main cause of the muscle loss). HIIT provokes an hormonal response very similar to weight training, anabolic in other words
Last edited:
musclebosun
New member
this thread is giving me a hard on.
necr0potenc3
New member
ey musclebosun, I aced the physical exams. jan 27th I have to report and check my designation 
anyway, getting back to the thread heh
I'm stepping in a muddy area now. if you read further, please understand that there's no such thing as linear metabolism. your body will suck up any energy resource currently (and locally) available. that includes aminoacids (aka muscle catabolism), lactate (lactic acid), fat (mainly glycerol), blood glucose, liver's glycogen stores and yadda yadda
about scanning the chemicals and etc.... like aps1087 said, which energy deposits are used the most isn't that important
reason is, if you deplete (or make use of) your muscle glycogen your body will refill those stores somehow. your blood glucose levels will go down and glucagon is released, liver's glycogen stores are used and hepatic gluconeogenesis is stimulated. lactate, aminoacids and glycerol play the "base" role in gluconeogesis, assuming you're not under heavy physical stress (aerobic metabolism, since lactate is of anaerobic metabolism) that leaves aminoacids and glycerol. the amount of energy derived from fat is greater at low intensity exercises (protein metabolism plays a role of 1% of the energy, if I remember correctly) so that makes me quite sure when saying that at rest, glycerol is "prefered" over aminoacids
ever heard that "insulin stores fat. glucagon burns fat" maximum? its pretty much true. for more info check carbohydrate metabolism, protein metabolism, krebs cycle, take a deep look into gluconeogenesis and check how all of them interact. just don't go nuts
"fat burning" and fat loss are two different things. fat loss is based in calories while fat burning is basically a way to say "stay on that treadmil till you see the grass on the outside grow"
keep your proteins up (1g/lb or 2g/kg) to help muscle maintenance and try to base your fat intake on insaturated fat. cut down on the carbs (major caloric part of most diets) to achieve the desired caloric deficit. also, there's no logic in adding fat if you're trying to lose it so stay away from lots of high glycemic index foods (all that fucking candy)
btw, synpax about your "this is science don't argue against it" attitude, you should know that most things in science aren't 100% correct and understood. specially when it comes down to the metabolism. a quick (and minor) example is why some foods cause a low-glycemic response, no one is sure if its because of a slow carbohydrate entry in the bloodstream or quick removal of carbohydrate from the blood into the muscles. no one is sure if newton's laws should be entirely revised, even after finding several proofs that point flaws in it. science is anything but sure. thats exactly why in the beginning of this post you'll read "I'm stepping in a muddy area now"
anyway, getting back to the thread heh
I'm stepping in a muddy area now. if you read further, please understand that there's no such thing as linear metabolism. your body will suck up any energy resource currently (and locally) available. that includes aminoacids (aka muscle catabolism), lactate (lactic acid), fat (mainly glycerol), blood glucose, liver's glycogen stores and yadda yadda
about scanning the chemicals and etc.... like aps1087 said, which energy deposits are used the most isn't that important
reason is, if you deplete (or make use of) your muscle glycogen your body will refill those stores somehow. your blood glucose levels will go down and glucagon is released, liver's glycogen stores are used and hepatic gluconeogenesis is stimulated. lactate, aminoacids and glycerol play the "base" role in gluconeogesis, assuming you're not under heavy physical stress (aerobic metabolism, since lactate is of anaerobic metabolism) that leaves aminoacids and glycerol. the amount of energy derived from fat is greater at low intensity exercises (protein metabolism plays a role of 1% of the energy, if I remember correctly) so that makes me quite sure when saying that at rest, glycerol is "prefered" over aminoacids
ever heard that "insulin stores fat. glucagon burns fat" maximum? its pretty much true. for more info check carbohydrate metabolism, protein metabolism, krebs cycle, take a deep look into gluconeogenesis and check how all of them interact. just don't go nuts
"fat burning" and fat loss are two different things. fat loss is based in calories while fat burning is basically a way to say "stay on that treadmil till you see the grass on the outside grow"
keep your proteins up (1g/lb or 2g/kg) to help muscle maintenance and try to base your fat intake on insaturated fat. cut down on the carbs (major caloric part of most diets) to achieve the desired caloric deficit. also, there's no logic in adding fat if you're trying to lose it so stay away from lots of high glycemic index foods (all that fucking candy)
btw, synpax about your "this is science don't argue against it" attitude, you should know that most things in science aren't 100% correct and understood. specially when it comes down to the metabolism. a quick (and minor) example is why some foods cause a low-glycemic response, no one is sure if its because of a slow carbohydrate entry in the bloodstream or quick removal of carbohydrate from the blood into the muscles. no one is sure if newton's laws should be entirely revised, even after finding several proofs that point flaws in it. science is anything but sure. thats exactly why in the beginning of this post you'll read "I'm stepping in a muddy area now"
chicagobuffedbod
New member
Can I just say that for the person that started this threat:
Carth..if that is a photo of you then whatever you are doing is working great. I don't think you need to lose anymore fat. You look amazing. Not sure how much leaner you want to get but I think you look perfect as you are.
Carth..if that is a photo of you then whatever you are doing is working great. I don't think you need to lose anymore fat. You look amazing. Not sure how much leaner you want to get but I think you look perfect as you are.
heronqatar
New member
ephiedren is the best for buring fat 50mg b4 workout
chicagobuffedbod
New member
Well, where do you get it now since it has been banned?
cipherking
New member
u can get the hcl version of ephedrine which in my opinion works so much better. its pharma grade. add caffine and any cardio you wil lose weight.
