Aerobic base building and OutSmarting the Midlife Fat Cell

[Sue B]

Originally Posted by susan p

If you want to lose weight, it doesn't matter what substrate you burn, as long as you are burning calories. If, however, you want to make your body MORE EFFICIENT, you want to train it to be a fat-burner.

Actually, it's the other way around - if you want to burn more fat (energy), you want to be INefficient, like an SUV that burns more gas per mile than a compact car. The SAID principle means that your body adapts to a certain sport or activity by becoming as efficient as it can so it burns the least amount of fuel and makes the least amount of effort. This is great for athletes but not so good for people trying to lose weight. If you do nothing but step 6 days a week for years and years, you may become a star stepper but many people find that initial weight loss slows down and plateaus.

I haven't read any of Waterhouse but if she's saying that more efficient cells burn more fat, she certainly goes against a lot of other writers.

[susan p]

Originally Posted by Sue B

Actually, it's the other way around - if you want to burn more fat (energy), you want to be INefficient, like an SUV that burns more gas per mile than a compact car. The SAID principle means that your body adapts to a certain sport or activity by becoming as efficient as it can so it burns the least amount of fuel and makes the least amount of effort. This is great for athletes but not so good for people trying to lose weight. If you do nothing but step 6 days a week for years and years, you may become a star stepper but many people find that initial weight loss slows down and plateaus.

I haven't read any of Waterhouse but if she's saying that more efficient cells burn more fat, she certainly goes against a lot of other writers.

Athletic performance IS what I'm talking about, not fat loss per se. I'm just wondering if there is any connection between the princinples of ABB (that getting more efficient at burning fat at the cellular level leads to a more efficient "engine" for athletic performance), and DW's assertion that long steady cardio makes the amount of fat-releasing enzymes in your fat cells increase relative to the amount of fat-retaining enzymes. She isn't saying efficient muscle cells burn more fat. She's saying that fat cells are affected by two enzymes, one that causes them to store fat and one that causes them to release it. If you do steady-state, longer cardio, you encourage MORE of the enzyme that causes fat release. Basically it's just the ol' "fat burning zone" idea.

[FirmDancer]

Originally Posted by susan p

Anybody else do periodization that includes aerobic base-building? Have you noticed the same thing I did (increased cardio capacity, and weight loss without much diet change)?

I'm reading that you want to focus on ABB for 10-12 weeks at a time. I'm wondering what would happen if I focused on ABB for Jan/Feb/March, then focused did some tough cardio/weights rotations for Apr/May/June, then ABB again for July/Aug/Sept, etc.

What do athletes do? 3 months of ABB then 6 months of training? Or what?

Back in my racing days (mountain biking and triathlons), I followed periodization. Usually November through about April was ABB. Then theoretically one would spend 4-8 weeks on hills/strength and and 4-8 weeks intensity (i.e. sprints). Then the racing season. I basically raced all spring & sumer so the strength and intensity periods got jumbled up with racing.

Yes, I had enormous cardio capacity. I could workout all day. Still do, after 10 years of not racing. I just may be more genetically engineered for it.
Weight loss - to tell you the truth I never really correlated my weight with what period of training I was in. My weight stayed the same year-round, but I can't remember eating patterns at the time. But overall, my weight and bodyfat percentage was significantly less at that time than it is now.
I think a comparable rotation would be ABB for 4 months; tough weights for 3 months; AWT for 3 months; interspersed with rest/variety/recovery weeks.

[DRD0]

Originally Posted by susan p

I'm picking this to answer, but my concern is that I think the whole thread has been misunderstood!

I am not talking about the best method for fat loss. I am talking about athletic performance. Most people who do marathons, for instance, or compete in triathlons, or are serious cyclers, do aerobic base building in their off-season. It is a PERFORMANCE issue, not a fat loss issue. ( my only goal in doing a marathon a couple years ago was to finish, so I didn't really research that much into the whole on-season/off-season training thing!).

As far as fat-loss goes, all that matters is burning calories. It doesn't really matter that much what substrate your body is burning, whether it is burning carbohydrates anaerobically (as in HIIT), or burning fat aerobically (steady-state base-building).

But if you are wanting to increase your body's efficiency for performance in a sport, what aerobic base-building does is that it trains your muscles to be very efficient at burning fat (Debra Waterhouse, who is concerned about fat loss, tells how at the cellular level you have enzymes that store fat and enzymes that release it. At mid-life you have far fewer fat-releasing enzymes and far more fat-storing enzymes. You can TRAIN your cells to develop more fat-releasing enzymes by doing fat-burning level exercise for longer periods of time).

It is not unlike the idea that you can burn fat, or build muscle, but you can't do both at the same time. Your body can become efficient at burning carbs, or it can become efficient at burning fat. It can't become efficient at both at the same time.

If you want to lose weight, it doesn't matter what substrate you burn, as long as you are burning calories. If, however, you want to make your body MORE EFFICIENT, you want to train it to be a fat-burner. Cyclists and runners will work on this during their off-season, then start doing intervals and other anaerobic work preparing for their season. Their performance is better because they have a more efficient aerobic base to work from.

My observation is that I think Debra Waterhouse, who is focusing on fat loss, is essentially saying the same thing as athletes who focus on aerobic base-building in their off-season, which is that we aren't just training our bodies at a macro level, but we're training our ENZYMES at a cellular level. It's SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demand) on the cellular level.

I just noticed that when I did my walking rotation, 18 miles a week, I did happen to lose weight, which makes me wonder if Debra Waterhouse's fat loss theory and aerobic base building are related by a common cellular foundation. Not only did I lose weight, but my aerobic capacity significantly and noticeably INCREASED when I thought it would probably decrease.

For the record, I did do strength during my walking rotation: an upper body day, a lower body day, and a total body day every week (that's pretty much what i always do regardless of what I'm doing with my cardio).

BUT, if you are doing ABB, your strength should not get you all anaerobic either. So you have to watch doing really super heavy stuff that gets your heart rate up to 190.... Although I find in general that I can do Cathe's Pyramids for my upper/lower days, or almost any workout, using lighter weights, and keep my heart rate reasonable.

I'm just tossing it out there because it interested me.... I can tell you I would never skip strength entirely, no way.

I think it also depends on what you are training for. If you are training for an endurance event,it makes sense. However, if you are training for sprinting, than you still need ABB, but in periodization, you will have a lot of speed work(i.e. intervals) in your later periods. I also know the distance athletes do some speed work in later periods also as it improves their final kicks.

[MichelleRN]

And ya know what? The tragic truth is that its 80 percent diet and 20 percent exercise that helps you lose weight.... Fitness. heck, I am 46 and WONT do HIIT where I feel like throwing up a lung for 20 seconds EVER, I'm over that, fitness is consistency, looking skinny is not eating all the wheat thins and chasing it with a beer....(CURSES, yes, I did that last night after work!)

[DRD0]

Originally Posted by MichelleRN

And ya know what? The tragic truth is that its 80 percent diet and 20 percent exercise that helps you lose weight.... Fitness. heck, I am 46 and WONT do HIIT where I feel like throwing up a lung for 20 seconds EVER, I'm over that, fitness is consistency, looking skinny is not eating all the wheat thins and chasing it with a beer....(CURSES, yes, I did that last night after work!)

But hey, it sounds fun!

[Gardengirl]

Originally Posted by MichelleRN

And ya know what? The tragic truth is that its 80 percent diet and 20 percent exercise that helps you lose weight....

Sad, but true. And rings even more true as I age!

Originally Posted by MichelleRN

. . . and WONT do HIIT where I feel like throwing up a lung for 20 seconds EVER, I'm over that, fitness is consistency . . .

I'm over that too!

I thought about this last night as I was trying to drift off to sleep. The claims of this latest study leaves me wondering . . . So, the claims of the previous studies over the last 30 years or so that have told us to exercise and diet and stay within a healthy weight/bmi, etc. are wrong. Now it's okay to be over weight as long as you exercise 30 minutes a day most day. In fact, it's not just okay it's preferable. And all the latest studies (within the last 1-2 years) on visceral fat around our organs being dangerous must be wrong too? But the newest, latest studies are right. Right???? Or is that just until another studies comes out.

I don't know about anybody else but these studies have lost credibility with me. I saw a couple of news anchor people discussing this latest study (one of whom has struggled with weight and has had a heart attack) and they were both relieved about the facts in the new study. As if they were saying they were glad they didn't have to be so careful with diet any more. "Phew, what a relief. I'm glad to hear that." That's where I think all the publicity about this can be misleading and dangerous.

[Messe]

I don't think the problem is really with the studies themselves. It's the way the press releases and media reports interpret them. I especially have trouble with books/authors that don't back up their statements/pronouncements with peer-reviewed research. And even then, the peer-reviewed research needs to be looked at in terms of sample size, confounders, methods of data analysis, etc.

[Demeris]

Originally Posted by lfcjasp

I still say women exercising seriously is still virgin territory in its science...hope that makes sense. I think we all are writing the book on this subject.

AMEN sister

and the book has distinct chapters for the different ages and changes through which we pass!

[MichelleRN]

Judy, the problem with the media saying that its ok to be overweight as long as you move 30 minutes a day, is that, (I've read the full study) they are leaving out the fact that the docs in the study are defining "overweight" as someone who is 5'5 weighing, say 150-160 - or 10 to 20 percent over the highest recommended range....I am 135 and muscular, and look like an Irish Milkmaid (the one who carries a cow on her shoulders) at 140 - a bit zoftic, but healthy enough....and would look like a porkchop at 150-160... Here in our town, folks consider themselves "a little overweight" at 5'5 and 180....and Americans are becoming increasingly comfortable with being WAY over the old recommendations.....that's the problem, people no longer consider themselves overweight at clearly unhealthy numbers..