MJuric said:If you look back thru the posts thsi statement refers to "Weightloss" not "performance.
You are the one who started in on performance. I said that for people who decide to lose weight,
weight loss is more important than performance
Quoted message said:If you can find me a true scientific study that has been backed up that says "Using musles that
burn glycogen causes weightloss faster than using those that fat" I would be most interested.
Were we talking about which muscle fibers cause weight loss faster? I wasn't. But if you want to
talk about that, then I would say it is the *opposite* of what you just said, so I don't think you
will find any articles that say glycogen burning muscle causes weight loss faster than fat burning
muscle. To lose weight, I want to burn fat
Quoted message said:Throughout this entire discussion you've been taking bits and pieces adn making them fact
without any type of true connection. For instance The first post of Larry's claimed that
"Swimming burns more glycogen than fat as compared to running or cycling" I have no dispute
with this. The second article claimed "Three groups swimmers, walkers and cyclers all did
their thing for 60 minutes and teh swimmers didn't lose any weight were the other did" I
have no dispute with this either, I find it rather useless but no dispute. Then you come
along and make the conclusion that "since swimming burns more glycogen(First article) and
Swimmers don't lose weight(Second article) that you can't lose weight while burning
glycogen" which is simply a false statement based on one fact and one, IMO useless study.
Matt, I made no such conclusion. I said, if the two bits and pieces you referred to do accurately
represent how the system works, *and* if the body can't replenish its glycogen store by making
glucose from fat but must burn protein to do it (another fact reported by Larry), then running
and riding are better for losing weight than swimming, and I explained why. At no time did I
claim, or even imply, that one can't lose weight while burning glycogen, so why are you now
accusing me of doing so?
Quoted message said:I guess if you can come up with the study as requested above you'd have at least a leg to
stand on.
You have gotten things wrong every time you have responded. In this case, If I were to find the
study you request, it would support your argument, not mine. My argument is based on the three
facts, or two facts and one assumption, listed above.
Quoted message said:Real people are overweight because real people are clueless as to how much they eat.
That's easily debunked. I am a real person, and I am not clueless as to how much I eat.
Quoted message said:Thank you for reiterating my point. Yes everything is irrelavant except calories in calories
out.
I didn't reiterate your point, and, No, what exercise you do and what food you eat are both very
relevant! I explained why. I will try once more. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that swimming
burns 75% glycogen and 25% fat, and that riding burns 25% glycogen and 75% fat. Suppose we have two
people who want to lose 10 kilos and that one rides and the other swims. Suppose further that they
each burn 1000 calories per day during their 60 minutes of exercise.
That means the rider will burn 250 calories of glycogen and 750 calories of fat, while the swimmer
burns 750 calories of glycogen and 250 calories of fat. Right after the workout, they have both lost
0.5 kilograms, but this isn't permanent weight loss yet.
If they both restore their glycogen by eating carbohydrates, then the rider will restore 250
calories and the swimmer 750. That means the rider will have a 750 calorie deficit and the swimmer
will have a 250 calorie deficit. So if their diet consists of restoring ther burned glycogen, then
the rider will lose weight faster. If they eat more carbohydrates, fat, and protein than that which
is sufficient to restore their glycogen, they will both gain weight, but the rider still has a
bigger calorie deficit, so the rider might still lse weight where the swimmer would gain weight.
But if they don't restore their glycogen at all, then the swimmer might get into strife. Suppose
they both don't eat any carbs at all. They just eat enough fat and protein to supply their needs for
everything except the exercise. Then the body will manufacture glycogen. According to Larry, it
can't convert fat to glycogen, but it can convert protein to glycogen. That means the body will use
the incoming protein to restore the glycogen reserve, or, if the incoming protein is not enough, it
will cannibalize its own muscles to get enough glycogen to restore the normal level in the muscles.
That means the swimmer either must eat more protein or more carbohydrates to avoid losing muscle
because the swimmer's glycogen deficit is much higher than the rider's. The only way the swimmer can
lose weight as fast as the rider is to prevent his glycogen reserve from being restored, and that
means eating less protein *and* carbohydrates. ie the swimmer must allow his body to consume its own
muscle, if he wants to lose weight as fast as the rider.
The rider starts out by burning more fat than the swimmer, simply because we agree on the assumption
that riding (and running) being lower body exercises, burn more fat than swimming, which is an upper
body exercise. The rider's glycogen deficit is much lower than that of the swimmer, so he is in less
danger of losing muscle if he doesn't eat enough protein. I don't think I can lay it out any better
than that. My assumptions are (a) riding burns a much higher percentage of fat than glycogen per
kilocal burned than does swimming; (b) the body replaces its glycogen reserves by making glycogen if
carbs are not available; (c) glycogen can't be made from fat, but it can be made from protein.
If you can refute that argument with an argument, I want to see it, because I like swimming.
Quoted message said:This again is plainly wrong. There is no "magical level" were one goes from burning fat to
burning glycogen.
Who said anything about a magical level? There doesn't need to be a magical level for my
argument to apply.
Quoted message said:At all but the most extreme levels of High intensity you burn fat and glycogen. EVEN if you did a
high intensity workout that burned 1000 calories of which 80% was glycogen and then turned around
and replaced 100% of the glycogen you would still have burnt off 200 calories of fat. Of course
you could have just as simply replaced the 200 calories of fat loss with protein calories and only
replaced 600 calories of glycogen. Same effect.
Matt, that is simply irrelevant! Look at your 100% replacement remark in light of the argument
abouve. The problem is to lose weight. If swimming off 1000 calories and riding off 1000 calories
burn different levels of glygogen and fat, and the assumption, with which we both agree, is that
they do, then replenishing 100% of the glycogen level *must* mean that one exercise is better for
losing weight than the other. That *can't* be the same.
Quoted message said:On top of that the glycogen that is produced in the body via protein is easly produced form
excess protein whithout leaching from the muscles or causing and damage from the muscles
assuming a healthly diet including some carb replacement and healthy protein intakes. Of
course extreme calorie deficits can and will cause damage reguadless of diet.
...and that means that the swimmer must eat more protein than the runner to avoid losing muscle, the
consequence of which is that the swimmer will lose *less* weight than the rider or the runner.
Quoted message said:OTOH Atkins which doesn't allow for carbs could very possible cause the above leeching of
the musclular structure you speak of above. As stated before the body does have organs that
prefer glycogen as fuel. So those carbs come from somewhere, probably your muscles.
No, Matt. Atkins is a high-protein diet. High protein, high fat, low carbs, for the weight
loss phase.
martin
--
If you are a US citizen, please use your constitutional right to vote, because we badly need a new
president.
