Trouble to lose abdominal fat

[RiR0]

I didn't say energy balance doesn't matter.... and I don't see how what I wrote implies that it doesn't.

But increased fat storage is most definitely is a basic result of increased insulin... unless all the textbooks about human metabolism are now wrong.

And fasted cardio means reduced blood glucose and if the HR is low enough, fat oxidation will be favored. I would be interested to see what peer reviewed literature disputes this.

You have a very basic understanding and it leads you to a complete misunderstanding of what actually happens and how this actually works.
Again, acute (which is what you’re talking about) doesn’t matter.
fasted cardio leads to more fat burning during cardio but less during the day.
Fed cardio leads less fat burning during cardio but more during the day.
It balances out and doesn’t matter.
I’d argue fed cardio is better because you’ll have more energy to burn more calories.

Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise

It has been hypothesized that performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted versus ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increased fat storage has not fuck all to do with insulin, it has to do with a caloric surplus.
You’ll increase insulin sensitivity by being in a deficit regardless of the macro ratio.
I can go deeper if you want but it’ll only stand to confuse the op and give him information overload.
So no you don’t understand energy balance.
If you did you would know why you’re spouting nonsense.

 

[RiR0]

I was only trying to help the guy with some tricks to optimize the process. I never said energy balance doesn't matter.

Let me correct my post:

Like many have already said, energy balance is the BIGEST LEVER you can pull. You can't just eat more than you burn.

But if you want to selectively burn fat <insert my post here>.

I never said, or even implied, that insulin is required to store fat. But it's presence most definitely does increase this effect. What insulin hypotheses are you talking about? I was just explaining what you can read in a textbook and then extrapolate from that. Or, you could quote experts in the fields of nutrition, fitness, etc.

Never said all carbs turn into glucose... but eating just about any carb will raise glucose, which will spike insulin, which will increase fat storage... to the degree there are fatty acids available in the blood to be stored.

Selectively burn fat 😂 stop. Fat loss isn’t simply exercise induced fat oxidation. That’s acute.

Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed

Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[RiR0]

Speaking of experts let’s see what this one says:

 

[BombSkillz]

You have a very basic understanding and it leads you to a complete misunderstanding of what actually happens and how this actually works.
Again, acute (which is what you’re talking about) doesn’t matter.
fasted cardio leads to more fat burning during cardio but less during the day.
Fed cardio leads less fat burning during cardio but more during the day.
It balances out and doesn’t matter.
I’d argue fed cardio is better because you’ll have more energy to burn more calories.

Body composition changes associated with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise

It has been hypothesized that performing aerobic exercise after an overnight fast accelerates the loss of body fat. The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in fat mass and fat-free mass following four weeks of volume-equated fasted versus ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Increased fat storage has not fuck all to do with insulin, it has to do with a caloric surplus.
You’ll increase insulin sensitivity by being in a deficit regardless of the macro ratio.
I can go deeper if you want but it’ll only stand to confuse the op and give him information overload.
So no you don’t understand energy balance.
If you did you would know why you’re spouting nonsense.

You should go back and actually read the paper.

First of all, the authors themselves list several studies in their introduction that support what I've said.

Second, the study results themselves show the fasted group loses more fat, in percentage of body fat, then the fed group... so thanks for making my point for me.

Then the authors claim that result shows there is no effect... which is essentially a lie. Their P value for this is 0.06, and judging by how they attach the label "significant" to other differences, I am guessing their p threshold is 0.05, which is pretty standard. Them calling this a "trend" and dismissing it as insignificant, and then not discussing it further, intellectually dishonest. Also, the n here is 20, so the study power just sucks balls.

Is their discussion all you looked at? Go look at the numbers in the table. Never mind, here you go.



AND FURTHER, the exercise intervention is at 70% max HR. That is just too close to what an expected aerobic threshold would be, even for fit individuals. At that HR they were likely 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic and thus at the very least de-weighting any resultant group difference (who knows what else is confounded by this as well), which there was (1.3% vs 0.7%). A better test (and the study designers knew this because they cited the papers that would have taught them) would have been to have them walk fast for 2 hrs with HR closer to 60% max HR... but like many studies in the modern academia, this one was designed from the start to refute conventional thinking, which FYI, is how you get lines on your CV when you don't have an actual original idea to test.

I'll get to your other papers later.

Fuck, now @RiR0 is gonna hate me again

 

[RiR0]

You should go back and actually read the paper.

First of all, the authors themselves list several studies in their introduction that support what I've said.

Second, the study results themselves show the fasted group loses more fat, in percentage of body fat, then the fed group... so thanks for making my point for me.

Then the authors claim that result shows there is no effect... which is essentially a lie. Their P value for this is 0.06, and judging by how they attach the label "significant" to other differences, I am guessing their p threshold is 0.05, which is pretty standard. Them calling this a "trend" and dismissing it as insignificant, and then not discussing it further, intellectually dishonest. Also, the n here is 20, so the study power just sucks balls.

Is their discussion all you looked at? Go look at the numbers in the table. Never mind, here you go.

View attachment 33966

AND FURTHER, the exercise intervention is at 70% max HR. That is just too close to what an expected aerobic threshold would be, even for fit individuals. At that HR they were likely 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic and thus at the very least de-weighting any resultant group difference (who knows what else is confounded by this as well), which there was (1.3% vs 0.7%). A better test (and the study designers knew this because they cited the papers that would have taught them) would have been to have them walk fast for 2 hrs with HR closer to 60% max HR... but like many studies in the modern academia, this one was designed from the start to refute conventional thinking, which FYI, is how you get lines on your CV when you don't have an actual original idea to test.

I'll get to your other papers later.

Fuck, now @RiR0 is gonna hate me again

You should figure out the difference between fat burned and fatloss and how to actually interpret studies. Nope you’re just an idiot

 

[RiR0]

Yeah that numbers table doesn’t show what you think it shows

 

[RiR0]

Fasted cardio increases fat burning during exercise but fat burning is reduced during the day.
Fed cardio burns less fat during exercise but fat burning is increased during the day.
The net difference is 0

 

[RiR0]

Effect of Overnight Fasted Exercise on Weight Loss and Body Composition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

It remains unclear whether training in fasted compared to fed states leads to greater weight loss and whether this practice results in beneficial or detrimental changes in body composition. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effect of overnight-fasted versus fed exercise on weight...

www.mdpi.com

 

[lifter6973]

You should go back and actually read the paper.

First of all, the authors themselves list several studies in their introduction that support what I've said.

Second, the study results themselves show the fasted group loses more fat, in percentage of body fat, then the fed group... so thanks for making my point for me.

Then the authors claim that result shows there is no effect... which is essentially a lie. Their P value for this is 0.06, and judging by how they attach the label "significant" to other differences, I am guessing their p threshold is 0.05, which is pretty standard. Them calling this a "trend" and dismissing it as insignificant, and then not discussing it further, intellectually dishonest. Also, the n here is 20, so the study power just sucks balls.

Is their discussion all you looked at? Go look at the numbers in the table. Never mind, here you go.

View attachment 33966

AND FURTHER, the exercise intervention is at 70% max HR. That is just too close to what an expected aerobic threshold would be, even for fit individuals. At that HR they were likely 50/50 aerobic/anaerobic and thus at the very least de-weighting any resultant group difference (who knows what else is confounded by this as well), which there was (1.3% vs 0.7%). A better test (and the study designers knew this because they cited the papers that would have taught them) would have been to have them walk fast for 2 hrs with HR closer to 60% max HR... but like many studies in the modern academia, this one was designed from the start to refute conventional thinking, which FYI, is how you get lines on your CV when you don't have an actual original idea to test.

I'll get to your other papers later.

Fuck, now @RiR0 is gonna hate me again

Some good points and there is no one way to read or interpret a scientific paper.
As far as the hate, join the crowd buddy. The hate means you win.

 

[RiR0]

Some good points and there is no one way to read or interpret a scientific paper.
As far as the hate join the crowd buddy. The hate means you win.

There’s no one way to read and interpret a scientific paper? 🤔

 

[lifter6973]

There’s no one way to read and interpret a scientific paper? 🤔

Sure there are opinions but if every scientist and medical professional followed what is considered the best path, no one would ever make improvements or think outside the box.

 

[buck]

I find complaining about how a guy born in Brazil that probably speaks Portuguese as a first language and is writing a novel in English with more info then most anyone ever does is critiqued in a negative manner for his sentence structure is kind of humorous. But some may not see it that way.

 

[lifter6973]

I find complaining about how a guy in Brazil that probably speaks Portuguese as a first language and is writing a novel in English with more info then most anyone ever does is critiqued in a negative manner for his sentence structure is kind of humorous. But some may not see it that way.

It's just what certain people actually know how to do better than most on this board. Deflect and insult. 🤷‍♂️

 

[buck]

It's just what certain people actually know how to do best and claiming to know so much more than anyone else while thumping their chest. Deflect and insult. 🤷‍♂️

I know. And as soon as the name calling starts i tend to loose interest as i assume if they have to rely on that then the info in their argument is not as strong as they would like it to be.

 

[lifter6973]

I know. And as soon as the name calling starts i tend to loose interest as i assume if they have to rely on that then the info in their argument is not as strong as they would like it to be.

exactly what I was telling @BombSkillz, when they start spewing hate and insults, they have nothing of substance or significance to provide in response (signals other side has a more convincing argument).

 

[Euphrosyne]

I know. And as soon as the name calling starts i tend to loose interest as i assume if they have to rely on that then the info in their argument is not as strong as they would like it to be.

It’s common with Narcissistic Personality Disorder

 

[RiR0]

I know. And as soon as the name calling starts i tend to loose interest as i assume if they have to rely on that then the info in their argument is not as strong as they would like it to be.

We’re different because I don’t care about polite or manners or nice, I care about correct information.
People don’t like Paul Carter, Layne Norton, and Lyle McDonald because of their attitudes but they’re some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry.
I’m polite when I talk to children

 

[buck]

It’s common with Narcissistic Personality Disorder

I usually just get the sense that they stopped maturing emotionally when they were about 14 years old. And rack it up to childhood trauma to give them a break.

 

[Euphrosyne]

We’re different because I don’t care about polite or manners or nice, I care about correct information.
People don’t like Paul Carter, Layne Norton, and Lyle McDonald because of their attitudes but they’re some of the most knowledgeable people in the industry.
I’m polite when I talk to children

It’s not about manners ! You lack the ability to effectively debate. The weight of your response is bludgeoned by childish outburst of anger. When you’re in a bind and find someone is winning said debate, you become frustrated and lash out.

 

[RiR0]

It’s not about manners ! You lack the ability to effectively debate. The weight of your response is bludgeoned by childish outburst of anger. When you’re in a bind and find someone is winning said debate, you become frustrated and lash out.

Nope I call a spade a spade. There’s no winning lol

I provide evidence to back up my response. Hell I even explain it to where a toddler could understand.

Not my fault if even then retards still don’t get it and I offend some sensitive bitches