Fat burning research?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 2:08 AM GMT
    Hi, so I'm currently ~10% body fat (according to my not so accurate handheld Omron meter), and I'd really like to get down to 6-7%. It seems to me that when I'm around 160 lbs or more my body wants to be 10-12% body fat, and will lose fat and muscle in that proportion, but when I get down to around 140 lbs, my body has no problem being in the 5-6% body fat range (again according to my handheld meter).

    I've seen a lot of websites and people in forums touting one form of exercise versus another to burn fat, and most of them always say "research shows that such and such burns fat better." I was just wondering, does anybody have any links to some actual scientific research on the subject? Some people say high intensity interval training is best for burning fat. Some people say low intensity aerobic activity is best. Some say that burns muscle too. Some say high intensity cardio traning (not interval) is best. Others say that burns more more muscle that other training.

    I don't care which form of training you support, I'm open to anything, but I would like to see some actual research, not just claims that "HIIT has been proven to burn more fat." I can't seem to find any actual research on the subject (supporting any of these training methods). Did one person just make up a lie and say that something was scientifically proven? Then one by one everyone else just believed the original person and went along telling others about it, along with the "research has proven" tag?

    If anyone can show me some actual papers or links to some actual research or proof supporting any of these methods, it would be greatly appreciated. And while I'd love to have many of your bodies, a simple testimonial by someone with a hot body is not proof to me icon_smile.gif

    Thanks for any help!
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Oct 19, 2009 3:02 AM GMT
    What exactly is your need to get down to 6-7% bodyfat? Are you a professional athlete and you are competing for your daily bread?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 3:04 AM GMT
    Different bodies respond differently to all exercises, you are looking for hard numbers and you aren't going to find anything conclusive other than what is "generally" the most effective way of burning fat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 3:24 AM GMT
    In the last year there have been a couple of studies reported be major networks in interval training and fat burning. If you google fat burning studies of go to the major networks they should pop up. They then will list what journal the article is published in and the authors of the study.

    Try Healthcentral.com and major Universities that do major studies in this area. University of Illinois has a extensive PE department and does studies. You should be able to get into this body of work. Uof I published interval studies as early and the mid 60's

    Another great source is Sports medicine journals, geared to sports medicine doctors. South and North Carolina schools tend to be in the forefront of this work. There is a sports medicine publication that is on line you can google. I had a joint injury a few years ago and found in these journals almost everything you wanted to know, They cover everything in the world of sports, rehab and research.

    That's the best I can do the foot work is yours to do. Good luck,

    One more thing I said on another post. It was a story on one of the major Networks about an European study on fat loss. Briefly the study concluded that if you had body fat through your teens and kept is to twenty you would never loose it. It would shrink but not disappear. If you didn't have body fat by twenty and created it later you could loose it. This is certainly not the definitive word but interesting non the less to look at. Again google and it should show up.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 19, 2009 4:01 AM GMT
    Roccoe,
    I bet that is related to something I read a bit back that said the fat cells gained as a kid and during puberty stays with you the rest of your life. Your body maintains that number of fat cells indefinitely, the best you can do is try to reduce how much fat those cells store but you can't reduce the number of fat cells by dieting or exercise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 4:43 AM GMT
    anto

    I think one of has it right. I think you may be closer but I thought that if you lost the fat in your teens and had it off by twenty the cells were gone. If you kept the fat on by 20 it stayed with you the rest of your life and only shrank not disappeared.

    Alright now you got me interested so I'll see if I can find the article.

    Anecdotal information on myself. I was slim through 20-21, weight was 150 but a bit taller 6' 1".... hey we all shrink some more than others. Anyway I just got out of the pool!

    Hit 180lbs by 22-23 my last growing spurt and I've have stayed within 10 lbs the last 46 yrs.

    The one thing bad about scientific research is you only hear about one interesting study but never find out if it was duplicated to see if the conclusions were right. Every once in a while the American science foundation gets some highly respected researcher to go over the body of work done on a particular disease or problem. Sometimes the research has gone on for twenty years or more with no one looking to see if these studies came to the same conclusions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 4:48 AM GMT

    anto

    Correction i have stayed within 10 lbs the last 36 yrs. I have yet to reach 60 but that will happen in 2.5 months. I certainly don't want to add ten more yrs so quickly. If I am lucky I will get there in time.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Does time really exist or is it only change?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 4:58 AM GMT
    Anto saidRoccoe,
    I bet that is related to something I read a bit back that said the fat cells gained as a kid and during puberty stays with you the rest of your life. Your body maintains that number of fat cells indefinitely, the best you can do is try to reduce how much fat those cells store but you can't reduce the number of fat cells by dieting or exercise.


    Just thought of another way to get rid of those pesky fat cell.

    Find a good sucker.......I mean I mean a good surgeon really skilled at lypo.

    Problem solved???? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 2:44 PM GMT
    You're making this way too hard. There are tons of studies regarding HIIT online. Simply go to Google and type in "hiit fat loss".

    Hang in there. You'll find what you're looking for. Just do the Google thing and you'll be set.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 3:55 PM GMT
    Any kind of serious research on fat loss is going to be about obese people. The funding that's available is for medically-relevant problems. There's probably not going to be a lot of robust research on lean people trying to lose a few vanity pounds. Some information may be relevant to both cases, some may not be.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 3:58 PM GMT
    I am not sure it is as easy as googling HIIT on line. I did.... he knows about it, it is very interesting and certainly not new at all. Research on interval training as been around for decades and has come around again as the latest and greatest. Certainly has benefits but there are different questions being asked here.

    First Hurricane is already 10% ? body fat. If correct that is way better than most. We don't know what the accuracy of his Omron meter or it's repeatability. If it is accurate within 5% then he could be closer to his goal or farther away. Don't know. He needs to find out his body fat by an accurate method or he is shooting in the dark.

    The second question he is asking is being able to maintain a 5-6% BF at a higher weight or at a different weights. I get the feeling he would like to be 160 lbs and 5-6% BF. That is something HIIT sites won't answer for him.

    This is not simple unless you do lypo and drugs. The answers to his question is going to be a research paper or someone that does Physical conditioning research that knows the studies and lists them. I would also be interest in those studies.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 4:17 PM GMT
    As I read it, he wanted to read the research. You may wish to re-read the original poster's post. I didn't see any questions relating to how to do it, only the declaration when he gets to 140# that he stays leaner. He was asking for resources, if you re-read it.

    Galvanometers are a terrible way to measure body fat. In the picture following, the galvanometer had me at 37%; clearly I was not.

    Given proper diet, and training method, lots of folks routinely stay below 10%. That's mostly discipline. I've seen it a lot. Managing insulin response is key to body fat levels and keeping calories UP enough to support activity is CRUCIAL.

    HIIT is vastly more effective at retaining lean muscle mass ( which burns fat just sitting there) and at increasing metabolic rate without invoking the famine response and the processes that destroy muscle / protein. HIIT INCREASES cardiac threshold, as well. HIIT also increases anaerobic, as well as aerobic, performance. It's a classic example of training smarter. Study after study shows that you can lose as much as 300%, (yes, 3 times as much) fat over a given period with HIIT over steady-state cardio. Please, take time to read those studies for yourself.

    One thing you should be aware of, if you're a fat ass, or have hypertension, you need to ease into HIIT. HIIT will raise your heart rate and BP to high levels in a short period of time. If you have either condition, you need to proceed with caution.

    Here's me at 5'5", 190#, after 18 weeks of HIIT of 12 minutes in the morning, and 12 minutes at night. I did a few 20 minutes sessions, early on, but, most were 12 minutes. The last few weeks, I just did 20 minutes in the morning, or just 12 minutes in the morning where I'd run my heart rate to 160 BPM.

    I'm 49. I just had an EKG, and sonogram done on my heart (chamber measurements, wall measurements, intake and output velocities, and sounds), and I asked the cardiologist about any risk of stroke or heart attack. Less than 2% (the very best mode) was the answer. I'm in my 34'th year of lifting. My heart is stronger, and my heart is thicker (more muscled) than a regular person, and that was what we expected to find. We checked my cardiovascular stuff to make sure I was o.k. for surgery on my arm (I tore my short biceps distal tendon and had it re-attached).

    9730_176046.jpg



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 4:20 PM GMT
    For the Google challenged

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hiit+vs+cardio&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=hiit+vs&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=hiit+studies&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    Sorry you're having trouble.

    I think laziness is more the issue here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidFor the Google challenged

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hiit+vs+cardio&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=hiit+vs&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=hiit+studies&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    Sorry you're having trouble.

    I think laziness is more the issue here.


    Your anecdotal story of your results though impressive is hardly scientific or germane to the question. The two links you provided was helpful and one.

    http://evidencebasedfitness.blogspot.com/2007/03/hiit-vs-steady-state-who-will-win.html

    It refers to two studies and critical analysis by a PHD. It is good but hardly the definitive word. Two studies one large and one small does not have the final word. IF there are more studies and hurrane32 wants to undertake the work then great. If indeed as more studies come forward with both large group participation and same results or the large study duplicated with the same results than you may have something?


  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 19, 2009 6:13 PM GMT
    Why is it called HIIT though? It's sounds like it's just interval training with varying intensity and/or speed - in college in interval swim training it was called fartlek training. That's been around for decades. Seems like HIIT is just a renaming of an old concept?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 19, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
    Chucky,
    If you didn't use steroids or hormone therapy to get like you are then why use yourself as an example to others that cannot achieve what you have because as you have said you are a special case, one even worth special study when you were younger, correct?
    So it's misleading to be using yourself as an example to others as some kind of general rule of what can be achieved when you are not a general rule case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2009 7:37 PM GMT
    google tabata (i.e. Dr. Izumi Tabata) to get the numbers on hiit effectiveness. 1996 study. japanese speed skating team etc.

    ABSTRACT

    Effects of moderate-intensity endurance and high-intensity intermittent training on anaerobic capacity and VO2max.

    Tabata I, Nishimura K, Kouzaki M, Hirai Y, Ogita F, Miyachi M, Yamamoto K.

    Department of Physiology and Biomechanics, National Institute of Fitness and Sports, Kagoshima Prefecture, Japan.

    This study consists of two training experiments using a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. First, the effect of 6 wk of moderate-intensity endurance training (intensity: 70% of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), 60 min.d-1, 5 d.wk-1) on the anaerobic capacity (the maximal accumulated oxygen deficit) and VO2max was evaluated. After the training, the anaerobic capacity did not increase significantly (P > 0.10), while VO2max increased from 53 5 ml.kg-1 min-1 to 58 3 ml.kg-1.min-1 (P < 0.01) (mean SD). Second, to quantify the effect of high-intensity intermittent training on energy release, seven subjects performed an intermittent training exercise 5 d.wk-1 for 6 wk. The exhaustive intermittent training consisted of seven to eight sets of 20-s exercise at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max with a 10-s rest between each bout. After the training period, VO2max increased by 7 ml.kg-1.min-1, while the anaerobic capacity increased by 28%. In conclusion, this study showed that moderate-intensity aerobic training that improves the maximal aerobic power does not change anaerobic capacity and that adequate high-intensity intermittent training may improve both anaerobic and aerobic energy supplying systems significantly, probably through imposing intensive stimuli on both systems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2009 3:58 AM GMT
    Hey guys, thanks for the replies.

    swimbikerun saidWhat exactly is your need to get down to 6-7% bodyfat? Are you a professional athlete and you are competing for your daily bread?


    I don't care about what the number actually is, I'm just going by the fact that my meter currently says 10% and I'd like to get a little more definition in my abs and lose a little from the back/love handle area to get a better v-shape. When I was down at 5% I thought it was a little low, and now that I'm at 10% I think it's a little high, so I'm thinking somewhere in the middle will be good. I'm a difficult gainer, and the only way I was able to gain any weight was to stop running and completely stuff my face all the time. I gained about 25 lbs in 6-8 months, about half being fat and half being muscle (if my meter can can at least gauge change in body fat). So then I lost about 10lbs of the 25 (over a period of several months), hoping to lose a mainly fat, but my percentage hasn't dropped accordingly. I kept strength training the whole time, added less than ten miles of running a week, and started eating a normal amount (instead of stuffing my face).

    ****
    Thanks Roccoe, I'll do a little more research with the leads you provided.

    ****
    chuckystud saidFor the Google challenged

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hiit+vs+cardio&aq=0&aqi=g10&oq=hiit+vs&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=hiit+studies&aq=f&aqi=g1&oq=&fp=2755c6b3e9b2e9

    Sorry you're having trouble.

    I think laziness is more the issue here.


    Yeah, it's not laziness, but thanks for the assumption. I read the first three links in one of your searches, and it was the same stuff, people just mentioning a long lost study, but not actually referencing it or giving some hard results. With the other search you sent, I did see one actual researcher name mentioned, and the date of a study, so I'll have to look into that some more. Maybe some of the other links in the search also have some real information, but it gets frustrating reading through page after page of people saying the exact same thing without providing any hint of proof.

    ***

    So I think I didn't word my original post just right. I can accept that HIIT might burn more calories than a similar length cardio workout, but what I'd like is some real research on which one burns purely more fat, without sacrificing muscle (as that tends to be hard for me to gain). I don't care if I have to run 20 miles slowly vs 6 miles of HIIT, I just want to burn as as little muscle as possible while still burning some fat.

    I work in a molecular biology lab, so I guess I was hoping there was somehow a biochemical explanation for this (and some research to back it up). I have access to online versions of all of the respected scientific journals (and even the not at all respected ones), but i really wasn't able to find much there. I guess mindgarden is right; research like that just wouldn't be as well funded as other research. I'll keep trying to modify my search though and see if anything pops up.

    I remember reading in an old biology book of mine that carbohydrates were the easiest thing to break down, which is why the body has stores of glycogen for immediate use. After that is fat, which again, is why the body has stores of fat for later use. Finally, while proteins can be used as energy, they are harder for the body to break down and produce more waste, so they are the least preferred for satisfying energy needs. Given that, when the Atkins craze came out, I thought it made sense. I didn't think it was necessarily healthy, but it seemed to at least be based on real science. If you don't eat carbs, and you consume excessive amounts of protein (along with some fat), your body will preferentially burn your stored fat before it burns your consumed protein (although protein assimilation is another story).

    Anyway, I was hoping for a similar, logical, molecular based reasoning for HIIT vs cardio vs other for burning fat preferentially over muscle. In my head, it seems it doesn't matter if I were to run slowly or quickly or a mixture of the two. If my body needs energy, it should go for my glycogen stores (as long as I'm burning less than 1500-2000 at a time). After that, I would think it would still go for fat before muscle. Maybe muscle is broken down more to reduce energy requirements than to use as an energy source. Maybe muscle loss is just happens, unintended by the body. Either way, I don't see why one of these strategies would burn calories differently than another (as far as muscle to fat ratio). I can see HIIT maybe helping to build muscle a little better than slower cardio, but that's it.

    I run 25-35 minutes at a time, no more, and at a completely separate time than my lifting, so I doubt my body would go into some sort of "starvation" or "energy conservation" mode and start storing fat and breaking down muscle to reduce energy requirements.



    Anyway, thanks for everyone's help. I guess I'll just try some HIIT and see if that gives me better results. I used to do it all the time in high school for track practice, but I was a skinny little bitch back then, and I'd rather not return to that physical state icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2009 4:10 AM GMT
    carabin saidgoogle tabata (i.e. Dr. Izumi Tabata) to get the numbers on hiit effectiveness. 1996 study. japanese speed skating team etc.

    .


    Thanks! Not only were you not an ass, but you actually sent me the abstract, the authors, and the paper's title! Very helpful! It doesn't look like it's the information I'm looking for (if that even exists), but it's definitely the type of information I'm looking for, and it still looks interesting, so I'll probably read it anyway.



    Sorry, I don't like people to just tell me a conclusion, I like them to show me the facts and let me see if the conclusion makes sense. Especially in the health an fitness field, and especially now with the internet. There is so much crap out there; ignorant people touting "facts" that their friend's grandma's herbalist told them; deceptive advertising hiring roided out models selling one thing or another (along with the fact that people rarely admit their roid use); and then there are people who just have great genetics, and sure what they do may work for them, but they can probably scratch their ass and sniff their fingers and they'll put on a lb of muscle and lose a lb of fat, because anything short of dying will work for them.


    Anyway, thanks again!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2009 3:53 PM GMT
    Your last post Huuicane32 said it very well. The internet and places like this is not the best place to get scientific information. I am glad to know you are one of the few that can read research papers and come to your own conclusions because you can think for yourself. That's great. most do not. Just because some one published their research and came to a conclusion it doesn't make that conclusion definitive.

    I am with you as HIIT has been around for decades in some form or another. Interval and circuit training was a big research project in the late 60's at the U of I when I was an undergraduate there. Until the biological mechanism are totally understood and verified than I not sure HIIT has it over low intensity aerobic.

    Nice to see you don't let others think for you! icon_cool.gif
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 20, 2009 6:22 PM GMT
    Can anyone explain why it's not called fartlek training? It looks like it's the same thing as HIIT. The idea behind fartlek training is that speed and/or intensity are varied.

    But aside from that, you might like this study Hurricane:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502
    Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
    Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.

    Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

    The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program. When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program. Muscle biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 20, 2009 9:23 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]Anto said[/cite]Can anyone explain why it's not called fartlek training? It looks like it's the same thing as HIIT.

    A rose by any other name is still a ROSE!

    Just a thought icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2009 6:37 AM GMT
    Those handheld meter things are pretty inaccurate, you input your data and it'll give you a number based on what you punch in. I think they're pre-programmed. 6-7% body fat at 140 lbs sounds extremely thin to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2009 6:57 AM GMT
    It's important to be able to research stuff on your own and not be spoon-fed.

    Some folks are just lazy, I suppose, and grandiose complainers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidIt's important to be able to research stuff on your own and not be spoon-fed.

    Some folks are just lazy, I suppose, and grandiose complainers.


    Yes, I guess it is laziness. If you're a big enough ass, the asking of any question in an internet forum is lazy when the internet is obviously available to peruse for hours on end. In fact, anyone asking for any help is just plain lazy. Why don't they just do it themselves?

    OR - a novel thought here - I just figured that people who strongly promote ideas and theories would have the slightest inkling of an idea where their ideas and theories originated and may have seen the slightest bit of data or evidence for these theories before they accepted them, and that they might be kind enough to share the source of a bit of this evidence. I guess that is not the case.

    I suppose having a grandiose ass makes you more likely to be a grandiose ass.