Does High Intensity Training Help with Fat Loss?

[susani]

[quote]mkral55 wrote:
Good thing to discuss, just don’t ignore what the hours of effort are teaching you, to sum it all up. [/quote]

Exactly! Combine what the science throws up with your personal experience. Learn from both to get the best results.

A while back the poplar myth was that working out for hours in the mythical ‘fat burning zone’ was the only way to burn fat. You’d be lynched if you suggested that “hey - maybe this doesn’t work!”. Nowadays it’s swung the other way - long duration cardio is bad - the new holy grail is short, high intensity intervals.

Over and over you hear people say “But it isn’t working for me!”. And they’re told “Well your diet must be wrong”. Maybe, just maybe the latest trend peddled by the fitness industry isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be?

My conclusion so far from delving into the research is that really you need to work at all intensities for the best results when it comes to calorie burn AND a strong cardiovascular system. (That’s what my experience tells me too).

1. High intensity increases growth hormone production. That’s good for muscle growth and for fat distribution (less belly fat). But a number of studies have shown it isn’t resulting in any significant calorie burn.

2. High intensity training burns more calories than low intensity. But duration is very significant. If you train at very high intensity you won’t be able to keep it up for long so total calorie burn will be lower than say, one hour of pretty hard but sustainable running.

3. Low intensity long duration 30 - 90 minutes at around 70% of max heart rate does have fitness benefits that can’t be achieved through high intensity training. It can also be done as a recovery exercise as it takes little out of you. It will burn a decent number of calories because of the duration. So it shouldn’t be dismissed as useless as part of a more comprehensive training plan.

4. You don’t need to worry about long duration cardio eating muscle. It’s only after about 90 minutes that the body starts to use protein for fuel (apparently - I haven’t found an awful lot of research on this, but that seems to be the case from what I’ve read??)

5. You burn more calories when you lack conditioning. The better you get at something the fewer calories it burns. Varying intensity and duration regularly is one way to ensure that you’re taking advantage of all your ‘easy calorie burn’.

6. Research shows that exercise can have a big impact on appetite. Studies have shown that the hormones that tell you that you’re full are increased after intense exercise - and the studies have also shown that people tend to eat less as a result. One study of runners and walkers showed that after several months of consistent training the runners (without realising it) learned to not overeat (improved self-regulation). The walkers however ate more. Most people seem to be less hungry after high intensity training. However, everyone is different. But if a certain type of training intensity reduces your appetite it makes sense to do more of it if fat loss is your goal.

At the end of the day you need to try these things an see what works. And also you need to weigh up how well they fit into your other training goals. Hope this helps someone else. I can post up research links if anyone specifically wants to find out more about any of it.

Also very interested to hear from anyone that’s unearthed any more research and info on this subject

[adrencg]

When I see people jogging, I feel bad that they didn’t get the memo yet.

Less time spent working, more calories burned. It works.

[susani]

[quote]adrencg wrote:
When I see people jogging, I feel bad that they didn’t get the memo yet.

Less time spent working, more calories burned. It works. [/quote]

That’s the point though adrencg - when they actually measured it they found it’s not the case. So maybe they got the latest memo after all!!!

Apparently it’s a very easy thing to measure accurately. Anything that burns calories consumes oxygen. By measuring oxygen consumption they can reliably tell how many calories are being burned. Apparently it really is that simple - and well researched!

Now obviously the harder the effort the more calories burned. Running at 10k pace for 45 minutes will burn far more calories than jogging for 45 minutes. The trouble is, most people aren’t fit enough to run hard for 45 minutes. Or if they did it they wouldn’t be able to do it very often as it requires a good deal of recovery time.

The high intensity training fans claim this doesn’t matter - high intensity training burns so many calories that a 10 minute workout burns more than a longer, lower intensity workout. The reason they give for this is something called an ‘afterburn’. A workout causes the body to break down - the repair process itself burns calories perhaps for 24 or 48 hours after the workout. A high intensity workout has a far greater afterburn than a low intensity workout and that’s why 10 mins of hard effort burns more calories than a one hour run. Wonderful! Except when they actually measured it they found to to be utter bollocks.

The calorie ‘afterburn’ is simply not significant. Whilst training at very high intensity does burn more calories most people can’t keep it up for long - or do it regularly enough. It simply requires too much recovery. Your body is better able to tolerate long sessions at low intensity and this has far more potential to burn calories.

There are of course benefits to high intensity training. I think it can definitely lead to fat redistribution - probably due to the increase in growth hormone production. It can also help with muscle growth which will allow you to consume more calories without gaining fat (because calories will be channeled into muscle growth).

But if you need to burn calories to shed excess fat and you are unwilling or unable to cut back on food intake then long duration, lower intensity training is your best bet. Unless you’re fit enough with good enough recovery to cope with long duration, high intensity training!

[Ecchastang]

[quote]susani wrote:

But if you need to burn calories to shed excess fat and you are unwilling or unable to cut back on food intake then long duration, lower intensity training is your best bet.
[/quote]
That is completely false. 1994 study had participants do 20 weeks of steady state aerobic training or 15 weeks of sprint intervals. (15 thirty second sprints). Sprint group lost more fat.

2010 study found 6 sessions of 6 thirty second all out cycle sprints with 4 min rest over 2 weeks led to 3cm waist reduction. Sprints have been shown to increase GH, whereas slow steady state causes a reduction in testosterone.

2011 study show sprints increase stroke volume and reduce resting heart rate.

Sprints have a greater impact on cholesterol profile as well, and improve maximum lung capacity.

2011 Journal of Obesity review shows that “regular aerobic exercise on body fat is negligible.” And that high intensity intermittent exercise, which is anaerobic in nature is more effective .

The purpose of Aerobic exercise is to train the body to be as efficient as possible.

2006 study of runners over a 9 year period showed that only runners that tripled their mileage over the time (from 16km per week to 64 km per week) did NOT gain fat.

Duke University 13 week study had men do either 30 minutes of cardio or 60 minutes of cardio, and the 30 min group lost 4kg, the 60 lost 3.8kg.

The research will prove you wrong time and time again on which is more effective for fat loss.

[adrencg]

[quote]susani wrote:

[quote]adrencg wrote:
When I see people jogging, I feel bad that they didn’t get the memo yet.

Less time spent working, more calories burned. It works. [/quote]

That’s the point though adrencg - when they actually measured it they found it’s not the case. So maybe they got the latest memo after all!!!

Apparently it’s a very easy thing to measure accurately. Anything that burns calories consumes oxygen. By measuring oxygen consumption they can reliably tell how many calories are being burned. Apparently it really is that simple - and well researched!

Now obviously the harder the effort the more calories burned. Running at 10k pace for 45 minutes will burn far more calories than jogging for 45 minutes. The trouble is, most people aren’t fit enough to run hard for 45 minutes. Or if they did it they wouldn’t be able to do it very often as it requires a good deal of recovery time.

The high intensity training fans claim this doesn’t matter - high intensity training burns so many calories that a 10 minute workout burns more than a longer, lower intensity workout. The reason they give for this is something called an ‘afterburn’. A workout causes the body to break down - the repair process itself burns calories perhaps for 24 or 48 hours after the workout. A high intensity workout has a far greater afterburn than a low intensity workout and that’s why 10 mins of hard effort burns more calories than a one hour run. Wonderful! Except when they actually measured it they found to to be utter bollocks.

The calorie ‘afterburn’ is simply not significant. Whilst training at very high intensity does burn more calories most people can’t keep it up for long - or do it regularly enough. It simply requires too much recovery. Your body is better able to tolerate long sessions at low intensity and this has far more potential to burn calories.

There are of course benefits to high intensity training. I think it can definitely lead to fat redistribution - probably due to the increase in growth hormone production. It can also help with muscle growth which will allow you to consume more calories without gaining fat (because calories will be channeled into muscle growth).

But if you need to burn calories to shed excess fat and you are unwilling or unable to cut back on food intake then long duration, lower intensity training is your best bet. Unless you’re fit enough with good enough recovery to cope with long duration, high intensity training!
[/quote]

I’m guessing you’re a jogger.

I’ve done both ways, and I’ve seen the difference. Getting into a state of sweating profusely and gasping for air gets better results in fat loss than biking or running at a moderate pace for long times/distances.

[susani]

[quote]adrencg wrote:

I’m guessing you’re a jogger?[/quote]

Why is it that so many of you guys resort to trying to belittle how others train the moment a line of discussion comes up that makes you uncomfortable? I’m assuming you’re thinking that I’m bringing up this discussion about the myths surrounding high intensity training because I prefer to do low intensity, long duration workouts? You couldn’t be more wrong! I’m all about maximizing results from my training - I don’t cling to things because I like them. If they don’t work they get ditched for something more effective.

But, as you have brought it up…

Actually no. I don’t jog. I train hard in all aspects of fitness so i’m fit enough to train at high intensity for long periods of time - my lactate threshold is high. I actually do a mix of 10 minute, 20 minute, 40 minute and 60 minute sessions all at maximum intensity I can sustain for that period.

So for example, here’s my heart rate stats from a typical spin session:

Length of session: 30 minutes
Average Heart rate: 164 bpm
Maximum Heart Rate : 174 bpm

According to the basic formula (220 - age) my max heart rate should be 169. In actual fact though I’ve seen it go as high as 188bpm. But that’s during running. Typically your maximum heart rate when cycling is 10bpm lower - just because you’re seated (that holds true even for elite cyclists apparently). However you look at it, that’s a hr above 80% of max for a full 30 minutes. I can sustain above 90% of max for an hour. That is SERIOUS calorie burn - trust me, there is a huge amount of oxygen consumption involved and a way higher ‘afterburn’ than you’d get from a short interval session!! Massively more calories consumed than in a 10 minute hard intervals workout.

So this idea that the only alternative to 10 minutes of hard intervals is misleading. A far better calorie burn is a 30 mins to 1 hour HARD workout that gets your heart rate elevated to 80 - 90% of max and keeps it there! It doesn’t need to be steady state - intervals with very short recoveries will keep your heart rate elevated - even during the short rests.

That said, I also do a fortnightly long, slow run (for specific training purposes - not for fat loss). The goal with that is to keep the heart rate down at around 70% max hr. I do that for 1 hour to 90 minutes so because of the duration even that burns more calories than the short high intensity intervals. I do it to improve my running, but it also doubles up as awesome active recovery after a hard leg day. My understanding is that the body doesn’t start to burn muscle until after 90 minutes. Longer than 90 minutes and you do start to cannibalize yourself!!

Ecchastang, I’ve already pointed out many benefits to high intensity training and offered some suggestions as to WHY some people loose more fat doing them. The point you’re missing is this : Some studies showed that people lost more fat doing short intervals (over long, easy workouts) and conclusions were drawn to why that was. Those conclusions are now being shown by further research to be incorrect.

They have disproven the notion that short training sessions at very high intensity burn more calories than long sessions at a more moderate intensity. The ‘afterburn’ that’s so often talked about is insignificant. It’s important to know this and understand what the REAL benefits are of high intensity training. And to understand the benefits of lower intensity, longer duration training. That way each individual can select the mix that will yield the best results for them.

Some people will still choose to use short, high intensity bursts only and do well on it. Others will get better results with varying proportions of training at varying intensities/duration.

[ActivitiesGuy]

[quote]susani wrote:
Some people will still choose to use short, high intensity bursts only and do well on it. Others will get better results with varying proportions of training at varying intensities/duration.
[/quote]

Sooooo…this is pretty much the whole thread in a nutshell, right?

I have no dog in this fight; I had a period where I ran 60 miles per week training for marathons and was quite happy with my physique, and a period where all of my “cardio” came from yoga classes and intervals on the spinning bike and was happy with my physique. I’ve worked at both extremes. I just think you’re at the point where you’re typing long walls of text because you like to hear yourself talk. I haven’t seen much productive in this thread other than that.

[susani]

Not at all. That’s just the observation - that many people, like you, get great results on a whole variety of combinations of intensity and duration. Which kind of flies in the face of the current popular theory that HIIT is the only way to go when it comes to training for fat loss.

The thread was intended to be about looking at what benefits you really get from short duration, high intensity training in terms of fat loss. Recent research has dispelled the myth that the benefit is a very high calorie burn. So why do some people do so well on it? And why is it useless for others? I agree that so far the discussion hasn’t been very productive - but I live in hope

To try and clarify further - I’m interested in exploring the pros and cons of all types of training in order to make better choices when it comes to experimenting with various approaches. I’m sure this is something that would be useful to lots of people given the questions that people tend to ask in relation to choosing training methods to help with fat loss.

[Ecchastang]

[quote]susani wrote:
Not at all. That’s just the observation - that many people, like you, get great results on a whole variety of combinations of intensity and duration. Which kind of flies in the face of the current popular theory that HIIT is the only way to go when it comes to training for fat loss.

The thread was intended to be about looking at what benefits you really get from short duration, high intensity training in terms of fat loss. Recent research has dispelled the myth that the benefit is a very high calorie burn. So why do some people do so well on it? And why is it useless for others? I agree that so far the discussion hasn’t been very productive - but I live in hope

To try and clarify further - I’m interested in exploring the pros and cons of all types of training in order to make better choices when it comes to experimenting with various approaches. I’m sure this is something that would be useful to lots of people given the questions that people tend to ask in relation to choosing training methods to help with fat loss.
[/quote]
Your are trying take an intricate system (the human body) and apply basic math to it. It doesn’t work. It is like saying the best way to lose weight is to consume less calories. What those calories are matter as much or more than how many. Many times you can consume more calories, but the right ones, and have better body composition changes. Same with exercise. How you burn calories matter as much or more than how many.

[susani]

I’d agree to that to an extent Ecchastang. Ultimately the only way to know for sure is to try it and see. Each individual is different - different genetics, lifestyle, goals, starting point and so on.

You say HOW you burn calories matter as much or more than how many. That’s kind of what my thinking is. My feeling is that the best results will come from finding the perfect blend - one that gets your body functioning in the most efficient way possible.

This is what I was hoping to discuss. Can you expand on that point? What is it about short, very high intensity intervals that is so valuable when it comes to fat loss? Can it be improved upon by adding in other types of training?

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]susani wrote:
I’ve been doing a little bit of research today in response to some discussion in the T-Nation fb page. A couple of things I’ve always assumed to be true - and have observed in myself - may not actually hold true.

I’ve always been a big fan of high intensity training. My observation is that it torches fat, improves body composition and raises metabolism causing you to burn more calories at rest.

Apparently this isn’t true.

It’s known that short burst, high intensity training doesn’t burn many calories. However, it’s believed by many to result in an ‘after burn’. Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) - supposedly the body has to work hard for hours or even days after intense exercise and that causes it to burn more calories.

Well, apparently (from what I’m reading - who’s to say it’s right), that after burn is pretty insignificant. And to make matters worse, as you get fitter the amount of calories burned after exercise reduces.

So why do so many people (including me) swear by high intensity training? What is the real reason that it seems to improve body composition and torch fat?[/quote]

Correct the epoc measured is like 50-100 calories extra compaed to a control group and they were in metabolic chambers so these are damn accurate.

Personally i like combos of hiit and LISS. Hiit is fun to me. It’s also how I trained for sprinting and hockey. So I was used to it and liked it. Jogging. Never not even once I have no middle gear it’d be torture and if it was acutally good to do I’d still do something else and be less efficient becuse I hate it. Biggest draw back for me and hiit is it affects recovery from weights. I can and have trained with enough frequency and volume to regress everywhere body fat. Muscle. Strength everything. And moved out some hiit for LISS and it all came back. Balance is the biggest. I also think fasted cardio is one of the best things that can be done for physique and health at the same time. Datbtrue has some great reading on this great science and anecdotal evidence. And physiologically I have yet to see someone disprove it

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:

But if you need to burn calories to shed excess fat and you are unwilling or unable to cut back on food intake then long duration, lower intensity training is your best bet.
[/quote]
That is completely false. 1994 study had participants do 20 weeks of steady state aerobic training or 15 weeks of sprint intervals. (15 thirty second sprints). Sprint group lost more fat.

2010 study found 6 sessions of 6 thirty second all out cycle sprints with 4 min rest over 2 weeks led to 3cm waist reduction. Sprints have been shown to increase GH, whereas slow steady state causes a reduction in testosterone.

2011 study show sprints increase stroke volume and reduce resting heart rate.

Sprints have a greater impact on cholesterol profile as well, and improve maximum lung capacity.

2011 Journal of Obesity review shows that “regular aerobic exercise on body fat is negligible.” And that high intensity intermittent exercise, which is anaerobic in nature is more effective .

The purpose of Aerobic exercise is to train the body to be as efficient as possible.

2006 study of runners over a 9 year period showed that only runners that tripled their mileage over the time (from 16km per week to 64 km per week) did NOT gain fat.

Duke University 13 week study had men do either 30 minutes of cardio or 60 minutes of cardio, and the 30 min group lost 4kg, the 60 lost 3.8kg.

The research will prove you wrong time and time again on which is more effective for fat loss.
[/quote]

You don’t even need cardio to get shredded so isn’t that the most efficient? And saying hiit is more effective for fat loss as a blanket statment doesn’t really work. It needs to work with your diet, training, and life as well and maybe it doesn’t which makes it inefficient

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
Not at all. That’s just the observation - that many people, like you, get great results on a whole variety of combinations of intensity and duration. Which kind of flies in the face of the current popular theory that HIIT is the only way to go when it comes to training for fat loss.

The thread was intended to be about looking at what benefits you really get from short duration, high intensity training in terms of fat loss. Recent research has dispelled the myth that the benefit is a very high calorie burn. So why do some people do so well on it? And why is it useless for others? I agree that so far the discussion hasn’t been very productive - but I live in hope

To try and clarify further - I’m interested in exploring the pros and cons of all types of training in order to make better choices when it comes to experimenting with various approaches. I’m sure this is something that would be useful to lots of people given the questions that people tend to ask in relation to choosing training methods to help with fat loss.
[/quote]
Your are trying take an intricate system (the human body) and apply basic math to it. It doesn’t work. It is like saying the best way to lose weight is to consume less calories. What those calories are matter as much or more than how many. Many times you can consume more calories, but the right ones, and have better body composition changes. Same with exercise. How you burn calories matter as much or more than how many. [/quote]

Agreed with the first part and not even close to the second one unless we start talking PEDs

[Ecchastang]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
Not at all. That’s just the observation - that many people, like you, get great results on a whole variety of combinations of intensity and duration. Which kind of flies in the face of the current popular theory that HIIT is the only way to go when it comes to training for fat loss.

The thread was intended to be about looking at what benefits you really get from short duration, high intensity training in terms of fat loss. Recent research has dispelled the myth that the benefit is a very high calorie burn. So why do some people do so well on it? And why is it useless for others? I agree that so far the discussion hasn’t been very productive - but I live in hope

To try and clarify further - I’m interested in exploring the pros and cons of all types of training in order to make better choices when it comes to experimenting with various approaches. I’m sure this is something that would be useful to lots of people given the questions that people tend to ask in relation to choosing training methods to help with fat loss.
[/quote]
Your are trying take an intricate system (the human body) and apply basic math to it. It doesn’t work. It is like saying the best way to lose weight is to consume less calories. What those calories are matter as much or more than how many. Many times you can consume more calories, but the right ones, and have better body composition changes. Same with exercise. How you burn calories matter as much or more than how many. [/quote]

Agreed with the first part and not even close to the second one unless we start talking PEDs [/quote]
Burning 300 calories via strength building vs burning 300 calories walking/light jogging. Types of exercise and intensity affect hormonal balance, etc.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
Not at all. That’s just the observation - that many people, like you, get great results on a whole variety of combinations of intensity and duration. Which kind of flies in the face of the current popular theory that HIIT is the only way to go when it comes to training for fat loss.

The thread was intended to be about looking at what benefits you really get from short duration, high intensity training in terms of fat loss. Recent research has dispelled the myth that the benefit is a very high calorie burn. So why do some people do so well on it? And why is it useless for others? I agree that so far the discussion hasn’t been very productive - but I live in hope

To try and clarify further - I’m interested in exploring the pros and cons of all types of training in order to make better choices when it comes to experimenting with various approaches. I’m sure this is something that would be useful to lots of people given the questions that people tend to ask in relation to choosing training methods to help with fat loss.
[/quote]
Your are trying take an intricate system (the human body) and apply basic math to it. It doesn’t work. It is like saying the best way to lose weight is to consume less calories. What those calories are matter as much or more than how many. Many times you can consume more calories, but the right ones, and have better body composition changes. Same with exercise. How you burn calories matter as much or more than how many. [/quote]

Agreed with the first part and not even close to the second one unless we start talking PEDs [/quote]
Burning 300 calories via strength building vs burning 300 calories walking/light jogging. Types of exercise and intensity affect hormonal balance, etc. [/quote]

Home one balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on

[Ecchastang]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Hormone balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on [/quote]
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that. Try eating 3000 kcal per day of dorritos and donuts, or 3500 kcal per day of whole cuts of meat, vegetables, rice, sweet potatoes, etc. and tell me which one will give you the better body composition in 3 months?

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Hormone balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on [/quote]
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that. Try eating 3000 kcal per day of dorritos and donuts, or 3500 kcal per day of whole cuts of meat, vegetables, rice, sweet potatoes, etc. and tell me which one will give you the better body composition in 3 months? [/quote]

The straw men arguments you have used twice make me not want to continue this sorry. You’re picking the arguments everyone likes to use. Two massive extremes. See see see I proved it. Sorry no

[Ecchastang]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Hormone balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on [/quote]
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that. Try eating 3000 kcal per day of dorritos and donuts, or 3500 kcal per day of whole cuts of meat, vegetables, rice, sweet potatoes, etc. and tell me which one will give you the better body composition in 3 months? [/quote]

The straw men arguments you have used twice make me not want to continue this sorry. You’re picking the arguments everyone likes to use. Two massive extremes. See see see I proved it. Sorry no[/quote]
There is no argument. I say what the calories are matter, you say they don’t. Same with the exercises. Sure, those are extreme examples, but they work on lesser extremes. Obviously greater the greater extreme.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Hormone balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on [/quote]
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that. Try eating 3000 kcal per day of dorritos and donuts, or 3500 kcal per day of whole cuts of meat, vegetables, rice, sweet potatoes, etc. and tell me which one will give you the better body composition in 3 months? [/quote]

The straw men arguments you have used twice make me not want to continue this sorry. You’re picking the arguments everyone likes to use. Two massive extremes. See see see I proved it. Sorry no[/quote]
There is no argument. I say what the calories are matter, you say they don’t. Same with the exercises. Sure, those are extreme examples, but they work on lesser extremes. Obviously greater the greater extreme. [/quote]

Lol ok Won’t stop me from eating cereal by the box and ice cream by the quart everyday

[Ecchastang]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Hormone balance in long run does nothing. Not the ones that are transient from a workout.

And Honeslty I was reffering to what your calories are raising calories with no other change and losing fat just by manipulation food choice. I didn’t even see the training thing. But lol at thinking comparing strength work to running. Come on [/quote]
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on that. Try eating 3000 kcal per day of dorritos and donuts, or 3500 kcal per day of whole cuts of meat, vegetables, rice, sweet potatoes, etc. and tell me which one will give you the better body composition in 3 months? [/quote]

The straw men arguments you have used twice make me not want to continue this sorry. You’re picking the arguments everyone likes to use. Two massive extremes. See see see I proved it. Sorry no[/quote]
There is no argument. I say what the calories are matter, you say they don’t. Same with the exercises. Sure, those are extreme examples, but they work on lesser extremes. Obviously greater the greater extreme. [/quote]

Lol ok Won’t stop me from eating cereal by the box and ice cream by the quart everyday :)[/quote]
I don’t eat cereal, but I can hold my own with ice cream. But for someone at 15% body fat or greater, I wouldn’t recommend it as a calorie source. Generally people that need to lose weight obviously have a reason they have extra fat on them in the first place. People that are lean are different altogether.