I was reading an old exercise physiology textbook and ran across a part that said fat catabolism is halted under anaerobic conditions because hydrogen remains with NAD+ and FAD. I am not too knowledgable on this stuff but to me the this translates to saying that fat will not be burned while lifting weights. Isn’t this incorrect? I mean don’t lifts such as deadlifting and squattting and especially oly lifts burn fat?
[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
I was reading an old exercise physiology textbook and ran across a part that said fat catabolism is halted under anaerobic conditions because hydrogen remains with NAD+ and FAD. I am not too knowledgable on this stuff but to me the this translates to saying that fat will not be burned while lifting weights. Isn’t this incorrect? I mean don’t lifts such as deadlifting and squattting and especially oly lifts burn fat? [/quote]
No, it’s mostly correct. It’s not entirely so, as things just aren’t as black and white as textbooks say (general hazard of trying to teach facts to young students overall basic facts/ideas that are not grad students or PHd’s who can analyze stuff), but yeah–lifting weights doesn’t “burn fat” as a fuel in the same way jogging 5 miles at a heart rate of 130 burns fat as fuel.
But lifting weights really hard is usually better.
It’s better because it leads to a longer, more sustained metabolic activity that DOES burn fat to use as fuel for tissue repair and strengthening processes and replenishing glycogen stores. You only burn fat while you’re jogging. In simplified terms, when you stop, the fat burning stops after your heart rate drops. You burn fat with weight training for up to 2 days after a session because you are still repairing tissue and such.
Basically, it is a logical fallacy to look at things–ESPECIALLY biological processes–in isolation. The “running burns fat and lifting doesn’t” crowd might be technically correct–kinda sort of–but they’re missing the forest for the trees. What matters most is NOT what fuel you are burning in the 45 minutes you are exercising. What matters is the effect that 45 minute workout has on the rest of your day, the day tomorrow, and all that.
It is more metabolically expensive to repair tissue and glycogen stores as well as strenthen muscle than it is to just burn off a small amount of fat stores, even though in that hour long window you might burn 5x more fat as workout fuel with jogging than you would with weight training.
EDIT–obvious exception for people like Michael Phelps who are spending 6+ hours daily on endurance work. I’m talking about “most people” here.
Thanks for the in depth answer Aragorn. I knew it couldn’t be as black and white as that. If you don’t mind me asking did you formally study any form of exercise science or did you just learn things through your own personal studying/experience?
[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
Thanks for the in depth answer Aragorn. I knew it couldn’t be as black and white as that. If you don’t mind me asking did you formally study any form of exercise science or did you just learn things through your own personal studying/experience? [/quote]
Both. I got my masters degree in biochemistry, and I just plain read a lot. Sometimes it goes against most people’s opinions, sometimes it agrees. I just do a lot of reseaech on my own. Only way to progress when you come down to it.
But that comment about never looking at aomething in isolation is essential. Doesnt matter whether its a lift, a weekly split, or a single molecule’s structure, it’s the most essential skill of a scientist. It’s all about context, thats what allows you to analyze something and learn about it.
Ill def keep that in mind though. It seems that often times people like to argue opposing sides when if you looked at the bigger picture both of their points have a sense of validity. I’m trying to do as much reading as I can on exercise science and how the body works. I want to study exercise science when I transfer to my next college as well, which is why I was curious about how you learned most of your information. Thanks for the replies
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Basically, it is a logical fallacy to look at things–ESPECIALLY biological processes–in isolation. The “running burns fat and lifting doesn’t” crowd might be technically correct–kinda sort of–but they’re missing the forest for the trees. What matters most is NOT what fuel you are burning in the 45 minutes you are exercising. What matters is the effect that 45 minute workout has on the rest of your day, the day tomorrow, and all that.
It is more metabolically expensive to repair tissue and glycogen stores as well as strenthen muscle than it is to just burn off a small amount of fat stores, even though in that hour long window you might burn 5x more fat as workout fuel with jogging than you would with weight training.[/quote]
as good as it gets
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
I was reading an old exercise physiology textbook and ran across a part that said fat catabolism is halted under anaerobic conditions because hydrogen remains with NAD+ and FAD. I am not too knowledgable on this stuff but to me the this translates to saying that fat will not be burned while lifting weights. Isn’t this incorrect? I mean don’t lifts such as deadlifting and squattting and especially oly lifts burn fat? [/quote]
No, it’s mostly correct. It’s not entirely so, as things just aren’t as black and white as textbooks say (general hazard of trying to teach facts to young students overall basic facts/ideas that are not grad students or PHd’s who can analyze stuff), but yeah–lifting weights doesn’t “burn fat” as a fuel in the same way jogging 5 miles at a heart rate of 130 burns fat as fuel.
But lifting weights really hard is usually better.
It’s better because it leads to a longer, more sustained metabolic activity that DOES burn fat to use as fuel for tissue repair and strengthening processes and replenishing glycogen stores. You only burn fat while you’re jogging. In simplified terms, when you stop, the fat burning stops after your heart rate drops. You burn fat with weight training for up to 2 days after a session because you are still repairing tissue and such.
Basically, it is a logical fallacy to look at things–ESPECIALLY biological processes–in isolation. The “running burns fat and lifting doesn’t” crowd might be technically correct–kinda sort of–but they’re missing the forest for the trees. What matters most is NOT what fuel you are burning in the 45 minutes you are exercising. What matters is the effect that 45 minute workout has on the rest of your day, the day tomorrow, and all that.
It is more metabolically expensive to repair tissue and glycogen stores as well as strenthen muscle than it is to just burn off a small amount of fat stores, even though in that hour long window you might burn 5x more fat as workout fuel with jogging than you would with weight training.
EDIT–obvious exception for people like Michael Phelps who are spending 6+ hours daily on endurance work. I’m talking about “most people” here.[/quote]
Great post.
OP, you should look into the concept of EPOC. It’s a great way to wrap your mind around energy metabolism from a non biochemical aspect (though it is extensively explained via biochemical processes)
@setto, its funny you should mention that. I am just now getting to the section in that textbook that talks a good deal about EPOC. I haven’t taken any classes in the exercise science field yet so at this point I’m pretty much teaching myself. It’s hard to really fully understand some of the concepts when you’re on your own but I’m grasping most of it. I just figured I would throw up a question on here every once in awhile if I was struggling with a concept. Seems like it turned out to be a good idea as I have gotten some great responses
[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
@setto, its funny you should mention that. I am just now getting to the section in that textbook that talks a good deal about EPOC. I haven’t taken any classes in the exercise science field yet so at this point I’m pretty much teaching myself. It’s hard to really fully understand some of the concepts when you’re on your own but I’m grasping most of it. I just figured I would throw up a question on here every once in awhile if I was struggling with a concept. Seems like it turned out to be a good idea as I have gotten some great responses [/quote]
Yeah the conditioning forum seems to be filled with some pretty knowledgeable people! Aragorn really knocked your question out of the park. I studied exercise science in University and you are approaching it perfectly: learn about a concept, then study it more in depth physiologically.
As far as EPOC is concerned, it really puts up a good argument for HIIT in terms of calories burned vs steady state work. As Aragorn said, it;s important to understand the overall effects of training throughout the day and not just during the bout of exercise.
Good luck!
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
I was reading an old exercise physiology textbook and ran across a part that said fat catabolism is halted under anaerobic conditions because hydrogen remains with NAD+ and FAD. I am not too knowledgable on this stuff but to me the this translates to saying that fat will not be burned while lifting weights. Isn’t this incorrect? I mean don’t lifts such as deadlifting and squattting and especially oly lifts burn fat? [/quote]
No, it’s mostly correct. It’s not entirely so, as things just aren’t as black and white as textbooks say (general hazard of trying to teach facts to young students overall basic facts/ideas that are not grad students or PHd’s who can analyze stuff), but yeah–lifting weights doesn’t “burn fat” as a fuel in the same way jogging 5 miles at a heart rate of 130 burns fat as fuel.
But lifting weights really hard is usually better.
It’s better because it leads to a longer, more sustained metabolic activity that DOES burn fat to use as fuel for tissue repair and strengthening processes and replenishing glycogen stores. You only burn fat while you’re jogging. In simplified terms, when you stop, the fat burning stops after your heart rate drops. You burn fat with weight training for up to 2 days after a session because you are still repairing tissue and such.
Basically, it is a logical fallacy to look at things–ESPECIALLY biological processes–in isolation. The “running burns fat and lifting doesn’t” crowd might be technically correct–kinda sort of–but they’re missing the forest for the trees. What matters most is NOT what fuel you are burning in the 45 minutes you are exercising. What matters is the effect that 45 minute workout has on the rest of your day, the day tomorrow, and all that.
It is more metabolically expensive to repair tissue and glycogen stores as well as strenthen muscle than it is to just burn off a small amount of fat stores, even though in that hour long window you might burn 5x more fat as workout fuel with jogging than you would with weight training.
EDIT–obvious exception for people like Michael Phelps who are spending 6+ hours daily on endurance work. I’m talking about “most people” here.[/quote]
Moderators–could you consider making post a sticky please? The question and answer are perfect.
Yeah Aragorn really nailed that answer. Its good to have a forum like this where some of the people really know their stuff
Lol. Thanks guys, I appreciate it. Just trying to help out! There’s so damn much information, it’s just hard to sort some of the details from the context they’re meant to reside in is all. Happens to everyone, even some PhD’s haha.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
In simplified terms, when you stop, the fat burning stops after your heart rate drops. [/quote]
Don’t you burn the most fat when your body is at rest, in terms of the percentage of fat/carbohydrates being burned?
Interesting conversation.
[quote]rollerderby wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
In simplified terms, when you stop, the fat burning stops after your heart rate drops. [/quote]
Don’t you burn the most fat when your body is at rest, in terms of the percentage of fat/carbohydrates being burned?
Interesting conversation.[/quote]
Ehh…yes… but when at rest you’re not really burning enough calories to LOSE fat. So the percentage is somewhat of a moot point in a sedentary individual unless you are restricting your calories to make up for the lack of exercise. But yeah at rest, it’s the biggest percentage. That is one reason why a lot of people will advise you to consume less carbs during the portions of your day when you are not busy or training (like evening). I agree with that, in addition to overall insulin load as described by Lonnie Lowery in some of his earlier works, and also that the natural circadian rhythm of a completely sedentary person is set to metabolize carbs best in the morning (not counting exercise and such).
And the general rule of thumb for fat burning during cardio exercise–as a percentage of overall substrate consumption-- is peaked at a heart rate from 120-145 ish. Varies with the person and with the diet, time accumulated doing cardio (ie: novice runner or long time consistent runner), other stuff. But basically it’s safe to assume in between 120-140 with a bit on either side.
After reading this thread i am going for lifting heavy weights while running 
Great post Aragorn.
One other thing to consider about anaerobic activities (and it’s actually more important what the level of intensity/heart rate is than the actual activity, though heavy resistance training certainly has other benefits) is the degree of lactic acid that is created during the exercise. Very short (10 seconds or less), but super high intensity exercises (like 40 yard dash or power lifting) previously stored energy in the muscles. Slightly longer (up to 2 minutes; can be extended with training) and slightly less intense exercises (like an extended constant tension bodybuilding set, or a 400 meter dash) use sugar as their primary form of fuel, and one of the by products of sugar breakdown is lactic acid (if there is insufficient oxygen). Lactic acid happens to be a big stimulator of growth hormone release. Growth hormone in turn affects lipolysis (albeit to a lesser degree than some other hormones, but it does contribute).
Again, though like Aragorn said, you have to look at things from a macro level and not in isolation. What is ultimately going to result in fat loss is burning more calories than you are eating (and thus forcing your body to tap into it’s “rainy day fund” of stored energy/fat), not the specific type of cardio that you engage in (though both types have health related benefits which make them good).
Lots of quality info.
1 thing to keep in mind is that many people talking about fat are actually talking about “excess”.
People with man boobs, large waist often experience water retention plus a higher than average body fat.
They might keep their activity level, keep their calories intake level and loose weight.
Lots of veggies(good minerals etc…) plus real foods(not processed) has the potential to flush away what i call " garbage ". It might eliminate surplus of salts, etc and result in a person with lower weight and smaller waist.
Like mentioned earlier some simplistic explanation are not completely right.
Any calories intake are not equal.
Look at reality. In areas we might consider remote there is no grocery store/process foods. At 75 yo the blood pressure is about the same as 20 yo. With grocery stores/processed foods docs say it is normal that blood pressure goes up with age.
Loosing “fat” is both easy and simple.
Loosing bad habits can be a different thing.