Friday, September 26, 2008

Week's end

Had a cheat lunch yesterday. As with every Thursday, my coworkers and I went out. The choice yesterday? Dino's Gyros. I got a Philly Gyro (lots of cheese), but opted for the salad instead of the fries and water over a soda. Then afterward we went to Starbucks and I got a medium White Chocolate Mocha with no whip and skim milk.

Total gain - nothing. Total loss - nothing.

I'll take it.

Today was a *huge* leg day. I was completely soaked. So I look forward to tomorrow's weigh-in. I should be down another half to a pound, depending on what I do today.

There was some controversy at the gym - my workout partner asked this dude who is totally ripped about fat loss, and what to do to increase the fat loss. The dude asked what our heartrate was, and was told we're in the 160s/170s. He said to be in the 130s. The 130s? I don't even feel like I've had a workout at that rate. He said we're burning off lean muscle. Anyone know? Is that true? Because I'm down 28 pounds, so I'd like to think that I'm doing something right. And I know that I've increased my cardio load, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm burning fat. At the same time, I look at Olympic sprinters, who shoot their heartrate way up, and compare their body type to the Olympic marathon runners, who keep their heartrate lower and have anti-ripped bodies.

I think I need to just switch to intervals on the elliptical. I've played with that idea a couple weeks ago, but didn't stick with it and figure out my proper levels. And I *know* that interval training is good for weight loss. Maybe that's why sprinters are ripped? Go hard, walk it off, go hard again, rinse, wash, repeat.




Geoff said...

That dude's an idiot. Yes, at lower heart rates a higher percentage for the calories burned comes from fat, but the total number of calories burned is low. At a higher heart rate you're burning more calories, and even with the lower percentage coming from fat, you're still burning more fat. Also, you don't burn muscle mass at any heart rate, you burn muscle glycogen which is just sugar. So later, when you eat some food, instead of it going into fat storage or being used immediately as energy, it goes into your muscles, allowing your body to continue burning its fat stores for energy. Higher intensity is almost always better for true fitness.

Anonymous said...

My immediate thoughts are the guy is refering to the BS "Fat Loss Zone" you see in treadmills and crap, and you're right it doesn't get anything done.

So, I echo what Geoff says, although in much less scientific terms: HIIT is the way to go.

And ninja fighting.

Jason said...

Geoff is 100% correct. The whole "fat burning zone" is a bunch of bs.

HIIT, I have found has been the best for weight loss. I do mine 30 seconds high 1 min low for 21-30 min. It has worked really well for me.

p.s. punch that dude in the face for being an idoit

Kristen said...

I agree with everyone else.

I do believe in the fat loss zones; however, I think it's a very individual thing. My anaerobic threshold is fairly high at somewhere around 175 - 180. I try to workout in most zones in any given workout, but I mostly float between 165 - 185. This would be way too high for others.

Where I've Been and Where I'm Going