Burn fat not muscle?
-
No new posts
| Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2008-10-27 10:44 AM |
Extreme Veteran 305![]() ![]() ![]() Lewisville | Subject: Burn fat not muscle?We've touched on this in many different ways on this site in the past... I was looking back at tri pictures over the season, comparing that to my weight changes. Over the past 3 seasons I've lost about 10lbs from the beginning of structured training to my last tri. During this loss, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the change is due to muscle loss. This is pretty apparent when looking at my pics (still flabby and chest/arms are smaller). This, of course, is something I'd like to avoid if possible going forward. I've read that cardio events over 60 mins start to eat muscle instead of burning carbs. I'm not sure how true this is, but this was a common theme I've found. I've also heard of endurance athletes training their body to burn fat instead of muscle (or more fat than muscle). So my question is... is there something I can do to keep muscle loss to a minimum, and burn fat? Does this have to do with heart rate zones? Or do I just need to accept the fact that I will primarily burn muscle during my long training sessions (>60mins). |
|
2008-10-27 10:50 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Master 1547![]() ![]() ![]() | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?I am wondering the same thing. I have lost at least 25lbs now but still have a msall gut...would like to get rid of that and go for something more like a runner (2372) in this pic (and this is a chic!)
|
2008-10-27 10:53 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Cycling Guru 15134![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?You are not "burning" muscle. To have your body scavenge muscle proteins to convert it to use as glycogen for fuel, you have to have SERIOUSLY depleted your body. And that is well into the proverbial "bonk" range. The training you are talking about it simply using your aerobic mechanisms and keeping your HR below your lactic threshold and using glycogen and fat stores to provide the main fuel sources. It is nothing more complicated than slowing down in your normal day to day training. You cannot "train" your body to use different fuel sources. When it boils down to it, it is pretty simple. Your muscles run off of glycogen. The primary source for this is carbohydrates that provide glycogen in its purest form for ease of use. Every adult person can store around 1,500 - 2,000 calories in glycogen in their body for use. The fat in your body can be converted to glycogen in the liver. But it is a much slower process. Your body is going to go for the easy stuff first (glycogen stores) while still pulling in some of the fat stores. As you go harder, the need for fuel rapidly increases and it is going to go for the easiest/fastest thing it can get, which is again your glycogen stores. Only in extreme cases where you have fully depleted your glycogen (marathons, half and full ironmans) and you continue to push your body will you unlock the "last ditch" effort of the body which is to start scavenging muscle to send to the liver to convert to glycogen. This is an even LONGER process than trying to convert the fat over and has serious repercussions. If you are this far into the fueling process, you are in a world of hurt. Edited by Daremo 2008-10-27 10:53 AM |
2008-10-27 11:00 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Houston | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?It is likely that your muscle has just become leaner, not necessarily that you have cannibalized it. |
2008-10-27 11:01 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Coach 10487![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Boston, MA | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Jazon71 - 2008-10-27 10:44 AM short answer is no you do NOT burn muscles. The only instances in which muscles canibalize in search of fuel is when you have depleted your fuel sources to the point that it is the only way for your body to keep funtioning or actually to stay alive. this will happend when you haven't consume any source of fuel and burn it all and this usually takes days.We've touched on this in many different ways on this site in the past... I was looking back at tri pictures over the season, comparing that to my weight changes. Over the past 3 seasons I've lost about 10lbs from the beginning of structured training to my last tri. During this loss, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the change is due to muscle loss. This is pretty apparent when looking at my pics (still flabby and chest/arms are smaller). This, of course, is something I'd like to avoid if possible going forward. I've read that cardio events over 60 mins start to eat muscle instead of burning carbs. I'm not sure how true this is, but this was a common theme I've found. I've also heard of endurance athletes training their body to burn fat instead of muscle (or more fat than muscle). So my question is... is there something I can do to keep muscle loss to a minimum, and burn fat? Does this have to do with heart rate zones? Or do I just need to accept the fact that I will primarily burn muscle during my long training sessions (>60mins). OTOH, Yes endurance sports tend to make you leaner as the training adaptations are focus to improve/maximize performance on slowtwitch fibers. For those who are musclely will lose muscle mas due to trainning due to the opposite adapations of endurance vs strenght training which mainly adapts fasttwitch muscle fibers (and make them bigger). If your main goals is to lose weight and keep your muscle build, then do some running, biking, swiming, etc., add weight/strenght lifting to your training and keep an eye on your diet. |
2008-10-27 11:11 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Champion 6503![]() ![]() ![]() NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?First of all a little basic biochemistry is in need: Your cells us sugars as energy for movement, life, etc. The easiest way for the cells to get sugar is to use the sugar in your blood. When your body runs low on sugar, it will break down your fat cells to make sugar for energy. When your fat supplies run low, your body will then break down your muscles for energy. This would indication severe malnutrition, which is a sign of insufficient calorie intake. If you are truly burning muscle to fuel your workouts, you need to see a nutritionist immediately. Second genetics. Genetics control many aspects of our appearance. I could do aerobic for six hours every day, and my legs would never be stems. They will always be tree trunks. The same reason that my hair is brown, and my eyes green. I'm sure that some of other 10 ladies in that picture would be displaying their midsections if they had definition like 2372. (Look at 18?5, she doesnt have nearly the definition of 2372). I wouldn't guess that they work any less hard than 2372, or have worse nutritional habits. Third historical weight: I would guess that 2372 hasn't had a lot of time at my top body fat content of 32% and body weight of 237. My guess is that she has always been lean <10%, and this kept her from having the "extra skin" that I have, and most other "normal" people have. Without lipo and surgery, I'm afraid that a six pack is NOT in my future. What is in my future is 12-14% body fat (right now I am around 18%), improved cardiovascular health, and a longer, healthier life. Edited by pga_mike 2008-10-27 11:16 AM |
|
2008-10-27 11:54 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Expert 810![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Southeast | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?What Rick and Jorge said. The 'chick' in question is Zivile Balciunaite. The 'other one' is Paul Radcliffe (world record holder, so maybe a 6-pack ain't everything, though Balciunaite beat her on this day). EDIT: Of course -- Paula, not Paul! Edited by mdickson68 2008-10-27 11:57 AM |
2008-10-27 11:56 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Extreme Veteran 305![]() ![]() ![]() Lewisville | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Thanks everyone for setting me straight... I primarily hear about this incorrect assumption from those who are avid weightlifters (like I was in my pre-tri days). There's this perception that you want to do some cardio, but not too much because you start to burn off everything you've trained for.
|
2008-10-27 12:25 PM in reply to: #1767826 |
Cycling Guru 15134![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?You utilize different muscles and different muscle fibers, so of course if you tip the scale too much more endurance sports you will see a change in your body composition. But there is certainly nothing that says someone cannot have some "mass" and be a decent endurance athlete. Just in the long term, the smaller/lighter person is going to have an advantage. |
2008-10-27 2:09 PM in reply to: #1767826 |
Champion 6503![]() ![]() ![]() NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Just to be clear, during your endurance training, you will be using energy that would have been used to muscle mass. You will experience a some loss loss of size, but I would assume that you had planned for that when you switched from weightlifting to triathlon! |
2008-10-27 2:52 PM in reply to: #1768239 |
Extreme Veteran 305![]() ![]() ![]() Lewisville | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?pga_mike - 2008-10-27 2:09 PM Just to be clear, during your endurance training, you will be using energy that would have been used to muscle mass. You will experience a some loss loss of size, but I would assume that you had planned for that when you switched from weightlifting to triathlon! Yes... I was in denial for a while but have now come to terms with this (mostly) |
|
2008-10-27 5:34 PM in reply to: #1768371 |
Expert 1183![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Fort Wayne, IN | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?It's kind of interesting that since May when I started seriously training, I've lost about 7% of my body mass and my swimming time for 2000 yards has gone down by about 7.5%. I haven't lost any muscle mass yet, but I've got about 10 more pounds of spare tire to get rid of to get down to my old marathon running weight (12 years ago). |
2008-10-27 6:32 PM in reply to: #1767665 |
Expert 936![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Springfield, MO | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?sax - 2008-10-27 10:50 AM I am wondering the same thing. I have lost at least 25lbs now but still have a msall gut...would like to get rid of that and go for something more like a runner (2372) in this pic (and this is a chic!)
Holy crap...has that been air brushed |
2008-10-27 6:49 PM in reply to: #1767826 |
Master 2491![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Jazon71 - 2008-10-27 12:56 PM Thanks everyone for setting me straight... I primarily hear about this incorrect assumption from those who are avid weightlifters (like I was in my pre-tri days). There's this perception that you want to do some cardio, but not too much because you start to burn off everything you've trained for.
That's just what they say to avoid doing cardio. |
2008-10-27 9:30 PM in reply to: #1767826 |
Coach 9167![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Jazon71 - 2008-10-27 10:56 AM Thanks everyone for setting me straight... I primarily hear about this incorrect assumption from those who are avid weightlifters (like I was in my pre-tri days). There's this perception that you want to do some cardio, but not too much because you start to burn off everything you've trained for.
That's exactly the issue..."burned off everything you've trained for"... Weight lifters are concerned about muscle size and about how many pounds they can move in a short time period (order of seconds). Triathletes are concerned about what their muscles can do over a long period of time (45 min to 14 hrs or longer depending on distance), and never need massive "strength" to perform their activities, just small amounts of strength over and over and over and over... So assuming your nutrition is anywhere close to "OK", your body is simply adjusting to the specifics of what you are training for. You can still train with weights to have big muscles if you like, it simple takes training time away from your triathlon sports. And you probably won't be at your best in either sport if you do both at the same time. |
2008-10-28 12:41 PM in reply to: #1767650 |
Extreme Veteran 454![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() PR | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?I'm almost on the same boat as you. I'm working with a sports nutritionist with my "diet" to loose 10 pounds (I'm currently 170, 17% fat). She want to get me to 13% and loose all that pounds from fat and not muscles. I've been only running from September until late November. So, she basically want me to include some "strength" workouts between my regular training, eg. abs, squats, pushups, dumbells (little weight), etc... 2-3X per week. Apparently the theory is that if you do some kind of strength training the body will not loose the weight from muscles and will burn only fat....
|
|
2008-10-28 12:56 PM in reply to: #1769452 |
Extreme Veteran 305![]() ![]() ![]() Lewisville | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?AdventureBear - 2008-10-27 9:30 PM Jazon71 - 2008-10-27 10:56 AM That's exactly the issue..."burned off everything you've trained for"... Weight lifters are concerned about muscle size and about how many pounds they can move in a short time period (order of seconds). Triathletes are concerned about what their muscles can do over a long period of time (45 min to 14 hrs or longer depending on distance), and never need massive "strength" to perform their activities, just small amounts of strength over and over and over and over... So assuming your nutrition is anywhere close to "OK", your body is simply adjusting to the specifics of what you are training for. You can still train with weights to have big muscles if you like, it simple takes training time away from your triathlon sports. And you probably won't be at your best in either sport if you do both at the same time. Thanks everyone for setting me straight... I primarily hear about this incorrect assumption from those who are avid weightlifters (like I was in my pre-tri days). There's this perception that you want to do some cardio, but not too much because you start to burn off everything you've trained for.
That's the kicker... I've finally come to realize that I really must choose what's more important personally. Do I want to improve my overall tri times, or do I want to try and hang on to muscle for vanity sake. Now that I'm 37 with a wife and 3 kids (and of course much wiser |
2008-10-28 4:56 PM in reply to: #1770829 |
Member 381![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Jazon71 - 2008-10-28 11:56 AM That's the kicker... I've finally come to realize that I really must choose what's more important personally. Do I want to improve my overall tri times, or do I want to try and hang on to muscle for vanity sake. Now that I'm 37 with a wife and 3 kids (and of course much wiser ohhhh... but in terms of vanity the triathlete physique is so highly coveted. ladies much prefer thin stringy dudes to big strong gladiators. this is precisely why triathlon got so much air time during the olympics and football is on OLN. |
2008-10-28 5:13 PM in reply to: #1767681 |
Elite 2608![]() ![]() ![]() Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?pengy - 2008-10-27 11:00 AM It is likely that your muscle has just become leaner, not necessarily that you have cannibalized it. All muscle is lean tissue. There's fat tissue and muscle tissue. No such thing as "fat muscle." Daremo, Jorge, and AdventureBear are correct. Your body is built for efficiency. It doesn't care that you want to keep your muscles. If you're not using your muscles to lift heavy stuff, the body interprets this as your no longer needing the muscle and you will lose it. If you're burning more calories than you're taking in, the muscle is likely to go first because it is more "expensive" to keep around than fat. Muscle requires more calories and nutrients to maintain than fat. This is why you appear to have lost weight but still have fat. If you really want to keep muscle, do some heavy lifting a few times a week. This way, you'll be telling your body that it needs to keep the muscle. Also, eat adequate amounts of protein and/or take some branched chain amino acids (BCAA). If you don't care about keeping muscle, then just keep doing what you're doing. |
2008-10-28 5:16 PM in reply to: #1767670 |
Elite 2608![]() ![]() ![]() Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Daremo - 2008-10-27 10:53 AM You cannot "train" your body to use different fuel sources. Not completely true. Going and staying on a low carb diet will force, or "train," your body to use ketones for fuel. I've tried to do endurance training while on a low carb diet and it's no fun at all. Not even a little fun. |
2008-10-28 6:10 PM in reply to: #1770792 |
Member 11 Loughborough | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?charlie - 2008-10-28 6:41 PM I'm almost on the same boat as you. I'm working with a sports nutritionist with my "diet" to loose 10 pounds (I'm currently 170, 17% fat). She want to get me to 13% and loose all that pounds from fat and not muscles. Apparently the theory is that if you do some kind of strength training the body will not loose the weight from muscles and will burn only fat....
When you overload the muscles, via weight lifting, they will rapidly adapt and grow. As I understand it, there is couple of consequences of this:- 1. Initially, you'll be heavier, the growth has come from muscles - so your body fat as an overall percentage will have declined. 2. Muscles always burn calories, it's always active. Fat is inert. If you can maintain your new muscle mass, without upping your intake of calories - then you'll also end up losing fat.
|
|
2008-10-28 8:39 PM in reply to: #1767650 |
Member 297![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Training your body to burn fat is easy. Go long and slow....
Matt Cazalas
|
2008-10-28 11:24 PM in reply to: #1767650 |
12 | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?man i was just thinking about this topic today. I was very into weightlifting and being big, but switched over to training for triathlons, lost about 25-30 lbs of mostly muscle, and i never hear the end of it. "WOW, what happend youre so skinny"..... im like shut the F up. Anyway who cares, well me a little, but ill get over it. |
2008-10-28 11:46 PM in reply to: #1770829 |
Elite 2608![]() ![]() ![]() Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Jazon71 - 2008-10-28 12:56 PM That's the kicker... I've finally come to realize that I really must choose what's more important personally. Do I want to improve my overall tri times, or do I want to try and hang on to muscle for vanity sake. Now that I'm 37 with a wife and 3 kids (and of course much wiser Please don't confuse weight training for strength and "bodybuilding." I agree with you 100% that training for training for vanity is not the way to go, as a general rule. Heck, I can't remember the last time I did a bicep curl. However, you want to avoid the mentality that "I'm getting older so I don't need muscle." In fact, I would argue that the older you get, the more you need and will benefit from weight training. Weight training also helps to build and maintain bone density (yes, osteoporosis is an issue for men, too), helps to strengthen joints and tendons, and helps with coordination. I firmly believe that the elderly would be way better off physically if they lifted weights. Unfortunately, weight training has become synonymous with "bodybuilding," and few people, including myself, want to look like those freak shows. Well, most people have no need to worry. Genetically, I was always stocky and have a tendency to gain muscle fairly easily, and I would need to work very hard to approach the physique of a bodybuilder. If you're really into triathlons and want to someday get onto the podium or perhaps qualify for Kona, then I by all means focus on the three sports and don't worry about the weights for a while. However, if you're doing tris for health and fitness, then I firmly believe you should be hitting the weights at least twice a week; more if you can. Stick to the big strength exercises such as deadlifts, squats, rows, pull downs, and some type of press (bench or overhead). Leave the curls to the frat boys. Leaving out weights is leaving out half of the health and fitness equation. |
2008-10-29 2:32 AM in reply to: #1767650 |
Expert 841![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Trinity, Florida | Subject: RE: Burn fat not muscle?Thanks all for the great information. Made me feel homesick for my undergraduate biology classes. For those who stopped reading at the second post this is for you. And not airbrushed in any way. (Zivile Balciunaite.jpg) Attachments ---------------- Zivile Balciunaite.jpg (45KB - 24 downloads) |
|
login




2008-10-27 10:44 AM
Lewisville





View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK