Help! - Running pace for metabolising fat & losing weight?

I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.

I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything.
I would not find it difficult to have a greater
calorie deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle
rather than fat.

However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.

I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle I
need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that this
can only be done through (aerobic) exercise. Something to do
with the Krebs Cycle.

If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
or third day.

I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
over this sort of distance would be right?

I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an overweight runner
like me isn't going to be able to run for much more than
20 minutes.

In article <9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4>, J.J. wrote:
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.

A conventional wisdom is that to preserve muscle, you need
to exercise those muscles. It also states that endurance
exercise does not help retain muscle that is not being
exercised by that exercise.

http://www.weightlossforall.com/aerobic%20exercise.htm

> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.

You could also exercise on an elliptical machine or ride a
bicycle, which is easier on the knees.

> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
> over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an overweight runner
> like me isn't going to be able to run for much more than
> 20 minutes.

Cardio is useful even if it does not help to preserve your
muscle mass, it is good for blood pressure, insulin
sensitivity, and all kinds of other things. So it is worth
doing, and resistance training is also worth doing.

i

At your weight (and mine!!), walking is just as beneficial
and you won't hurt as much the first time. Start with a 10
minute walk every day and build up to half an hour. Then
either increase your time to an hour a day, or pick up the
pace until you can't both walk and carry on a conversation
for lack of breath.

Another thing I learned years ago at college from an expert,
was that when you jog, jog loose. Don't clench your fists
and tighten up your arms and bang your feet on the ground.
Let your hands dangle, let your arms flop loose, step gently
but fast. You'll have less chance of injury.

"J.J." <nomail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4...
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.
>
> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
> over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an overweight runner
> like me isn't going to be able to run for much more than
> 20 minutes.

J.J. wrote:
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.

You'd be better off lifting weights and making sure that you
have lots of protein in your diet. Running is OK but picking
up heavy things is what will really help keep muscle as you
lose weight. See www.stumptuous.com/weights.html for help.
Good luck!

Neil

On 2004-06-08, J.J. <nomail@mail.com> wrote:
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.

Any exercise (aerobic or anaerobic) will help avoid lean
tissue loss. However, the primary advantage of aerobic
exercise is that it burns calories.

> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.

This amount of running will make very little difference, but
it will improve your aerobic fitness. Improving your aerobic
fitness is important, because this will help you get better
at burning calories.

> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes.

You're making this way too complicated, and missing the
obvious, which is that doing strenuous running will cause
you injury now anyway.

However, exercising hard on cardio equipment such as the
elliptical or the stationary bike will help.

For preserving muscle tissue, lifting weights is better than
any cardio. (You may even gain some)

> Would sort of running pace over this sort of distance
> would be right?

Depends on your level of fitness. One approach is to use a
heart rate monitor. Another is the "talk test" -- you should
be able to carry out a conversation when you're running. Not
just short sentences between gasps, but a normal
conversation (or sing your favourite song or something)

> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going.

You're making this way more complicated than it is. This is
a red herring.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"J.J." <nomail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4...
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.
>
> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
> over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an overweight runner
> like me isn't going to be able to run for much more than
> 20 minutes.

As Donovan has said, don't make this too complicated. You
are living and breathing the Krebs cycle each second of your
life. Don't get bogged down in the biochemical basis of
energy production. Any type of exercise you do will increase
your calorie burn - the more you do and the more intense,
the more calories you burn and the more weight you lose as
long as your dietary intake doesn't increase as well. BUT
you have to be careful how much you do to avoid injuring
yourself. Walking is great exercise, and will be gentler on
your inactive body than running. Figure that (very roughly)
you burn 100 calories per mile you move walking or running
(others - don't get picky about the exact figures which have
been debated extensively elsewhere). Walk 2 1/2 miles per
day each day of the week and you will burn roughly 1/2 pound
per week. As you build up aerobic capacity and strengthen
your muscles and bones, you may slowly want to add in
running. At that point, there are a number of beginning
runner's programs you can find on the internet.

Margaret

"J.J." wrote:
>
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.

Doesn't matter what you're burning, if you're breathing
oxygen you're using Krebs cycle. The only time you're not is
if the exercise you're doing is so intense it causes lactic
acid buildup, forcing you to stop. If you want to
specifically burn fat do low intensity exercise for as long
as possible and avoid high carb foods.

> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.
>
> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
> over this sort of distance would be right?

I've no idea what these enzymes are that are supposed to be
released. Fat burning goes on all the time, so all the
enzymes required are active all the time. The exception to
this is hormone-sensitive lipase, which releases fat into
the blood from fat stores. This is deactivated by insulin
released in response to high carb foods.

> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going.

The 20 minutes thing is how long it takes for the muscles to
switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to using
mostly fat (slower energy).

> But an overweight runner like me isn't going to be able
> to run for much more than 20 minutes.

You may end up doing your joints more harm than good
too. Long walks are the easiest way to lose fat
through exercise, although long cycle rides and swims
will work too.

MattLB

It is actually far simpler. The standard prescription for
fat loss is to create a 500 kcal deficit per day (at least
on average). The best way seems to be a mild increase in
activity and a mild decrease in food consumption. Creating a
bigger deficit will speed the rate of fat loss. It is not
uncommon for some lean mass to be lost as well.

Running or walking about 2.5 miles per day will get you the
250 kcals in activity. Cutting down on soft drinks will get
the other 250 kcals. Remember if you start to exercise, you
might need to increase your energy intake from the low
deficit you have currently or you may not feel the energy
to exercise.

For beginning exercisers, I say start slow and conservative.
If you have not been running, start with walking. If you
have been walking, add a few minutes of running interspersed
with a few minutes of walking. Over time, increase the
running and decrease the walking until you are running
continuously. Add time conservatively. No need to aim for
more than 30 minutes a day 4 or 5 times per week to start
with. To me it is better to walk 2 miles than to run 1 mile
at this point in your program.

Running hard early on is likely to lead to injury and
soreness and disappointment.

It took you a while to put the weight on, it will take some
time for it to come off.

"J.J." <nomail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4...
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>
> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> than fat.
>
> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>
> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
> or third day.
>
> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
> over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to get
> this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an overweight runner
> like me isn't going to be able to run for much more than
> 20 minutes.

"Ignoramus11156" <ignoramus11156@NOSPAM.11156.invalid> wrote in message
news:ca4mrv$3oh$0@pita.alt.net...
> In article <9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4>, J.J. wrote:
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> > pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
> >
> > I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> > deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> > would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> > deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> > than fat.
> >
> > However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
> >
> > I understand that in order to burn fat rather than
> > muscle I need to get my body to release certain enzymes
> > and that this can only be done through (aerobic)
> > exercise. Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> A conventional wisdom is that to preserve muscle, you need
> to exercise those muscles. It also states that endurance
> exercise does not help retain muscle that is not being
> exercised by that exercise.
>
> http://www.weightlossforall.com/aerobic%20exercise.htm
>
> > If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> > weight I might be able to run a mile or two every
> > secoond or third day.
>
> You could also exercise on an elliptical machine or ride a
> bicycle, which is easier on the knees.
>
> > I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> > produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running
> > pace over this sort of distance would be right?
> >
> > I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise
> > because I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and
> > start to get this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an
> > overweight runner like me isn't going to be able to run
> > for much more than 20 minutes.
>
> Cardio is useful even if it does not help to preserve your
> muscle mass, it is good for blood pressure, insulin
> sensitivity, and all kinds of other things. So it is worth
> doing, and resistance training is also worth doing.
>
> i

I agree completely. I have heard you can still have a heart
attack if you don't do cardio, no matter how much resistance
work you do. But resistance work is better for building
muscle. Both together help prevent or reverse osteoporosis.
Walking also prevents two of the top 3 cancers, and
dementia, and diabetes.

"MattLB" <mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote in message
news:40C70EED.ECDDB4EA@FAKEBITangelfire.com...
> Doesn't matter what you're burning, if you're breathing
> oxygen you're using Krebs cycle. The only time you're not
> is if the exercise you're doing is so intense it causes
> lactic acid buildup, forcing you to
stop.
> If you want to specifically burn fat do low
> intensity exercise for as long as possible and avoid
> high carb foods.

> I've no idea what these enzymes are that are supposed to
> be released. Fat burning goes on all the time, so all the
> enzymes required are
active
> all the time. The exception to this is hormone-sensitive
> lipase, which releases fat into the blood from fat stores.
> This is deactivated by insulin released in response to
> high carb foods.

Matt, You inference about carbs and insulin smells a lot
like Atkins and one of his gross embellishments that carbs
cause vast insulin spikes which raises havoc with EVERYONE
of us, and the rest of that dogmatic kaka he concludes from
this premise. If I'm running or racing long and need to
replenish my body with calories what would you suggest I/we
eat/drink?

-DougF

Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:

> On 2004-06-08, J.J. <nomail@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
>> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>>
>> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
>> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
>> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
>> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
>> than fat.
>>
>> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>>
>> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
>> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
>> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
>> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> Any exercise (aerobic or anaerobic) will help avoid lean
> tissue loss. However, the primary advantage of aerobic
> exercise is that it burns calories.

I didn't realise that any exercise, whether aerobic or
anaerobic, would help avoid lean tissue loss.

>> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
>> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
>> or third day.
>
> This amount of running will make very little difference,
> but it will improve your aerobic fitness. Improving your
> aerobic fitness is important, because this will help you
> get better at burning calories.
>
>> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
>> produce the necessary enzymes.
>
> You're making this way too complicated, and missing the
> obvious, which is that doing strenuous running will cause
> you injury now anyway.
>
> However, exercising hard on cardio equipment such as the
> elliptical or the stationary bike will help.
>
> For preserving muscle tissue, lifting weights is better
> than any cardio. (You may even gain some)

Is tis true even of someone who is dieting such that he has
a large calorie deficit (over 1000, perhaps 1500)?

>> Would sort of running pace over this sort of distance
>> would be right?
>
> Depends on your level of fitness. One approach is to use a
> heart rate monitor. Another is the "talk test" -- you
> should be able to carry out a conversation when you're
> running. Not just short sentences between gasps, but a
> normal conversation (or sing your favourite song or
> something)
>
>> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
>> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to
>> get this Krebs Cycle thing going.
>
> You're making this way more complicated than it is. This
> is a red herring.

MattLB <mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote:

> "J.J." wrote:
>>
>> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
>> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>>
>> I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
>> deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
>> would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
>> deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
>> than fat.
>>
>> However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>>
>> I understand that in order to burn fat rather than muscle
>> I need to get my body to release certain enzymes and that
>> this can only be done through (aerobic) exercise.
>> Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> Doesn't matter what you're burning, if you're breathing
> oxygen you're using Krebs cycle. The only time you're not
> is if the exercise you're doing is so intense it causes
> lactic acid buildup, forcing you to stop. If you want to
> specifically burn fat do low intensity exercise for as
> long as possible and avoid high carb foods.

I read some of Covert Bailey's books and he streesed the
need to exercise aerobically. One benefit he seemed to claim
was that fat loss would not occur unless you exercised for
15 or 20 minutes and got the Krebs cycle going. Of course, i
may have muddled up what he wrote but I don't think I have.

If, as you say, the Krebs cycle is at work all the time then
perhaps Bailey's suggestion is intended to really made it
kick into action and to burn lots more fat?

He gave the impression that if one did not exercise then one
would not lose fat even if one was on a low calorie diet. Is
this correct?

Can anyone please advise.

>> If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
>> weight I might be able to run a mile or two every secoond
>> or third day.
>>
>> I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
>> produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running pace
>> over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I've no idea what these enzymes are that are supposed to
> be released. Fat burning goes on all the time, so all the
> enzymes required are active all the time. The exception to
> this is hormone-sensitive lipase, which releases fat into
> the blood from fat stores. This is deactivated by insulin
> released in response to high carb foods.
>
>> I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise because
>> I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and start to
>> get this Krebs Cycle thing going.
>
> The 20 minutes thing is how long it takes for the muscles
> to switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to
> using mostly fat (slower energy).

"Neil Gendzwill" <ngendzwill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10cbs1uqug46tf2@corp.supernews.com...
> J.J. wrote:
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> > pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
> >
> > I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> > deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> > would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> > deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> > than fat.
> >
> > However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
> >
> > I understand that in order to burn fat rather than
> > muscle I need to get my body to release certain enzymes
> > and that this can only be done through (aerobic)
> > exercise. Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> You'd be better off lifting weights and making sure that
> you have lots of protein in your diet. Running is OK but
> picking up heavy things is what will really help keep
> muscle as you lose weight. See
> www.stumptuous.com/weights.html for help. Good luck!
>
> Neil
>

Why lots of protein? Define lots. The research is pretty
clear that more than 2 g/kg body weight is either stored as
fat or excreted. Even in building muscle carbohydrate is
essential since that is the fuel of exercise.

I would argue that one should do "cardio" as well as some
resistance training to maintain good health.

"MattLB" <mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote in message
news:40C70EED.ECDDB4EA@FAKEBITangelfire.com...
> "J.J." wrote:
> >
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> > pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
> >
> > I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
> > deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
> > would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
> > deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
> > than fat.
> >
> > However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
> >
> > I understand that in order to burn fat rather than
> > muscle I need to get my body to release certain enzymes
> > and that this can only be done through (aerobic)
> > exercise. Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>
> Doesn't matter what you're burning, if you're breathing
> oxygen you're using Krebs cycle. The only time you're not
> is if the exercise you're doing is so intense it causes
> lactic acid buildup, forcing you to stop. If you want to
> specifically burn fat do low intensity exercise for as
> long as possible and avoid high carb foods.

WRONG!!!! What one "burns" has nothing to do with
weight loss. The key is to create an energy deficit.
Get off the "carbs are bad" lie. Carbs are the
preferred fuel of exercise, even low intensity
exercise. Ever seen those guys lining up for the 100m
at the Olympics? They ain't fat and they do virtually
nothing that would be considered low intensity.

>
> > If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
> > weight I might be able to run a mile or two every
> > secoond or third day.
> >
> > I have heard that exercising your body too hard will not
> > produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of running
> > pace over this sort of distance would be right?
>
> I've no idea what these enzymes are that are supposed to
> be released. Fat burning goes on all the time, so all the
> enzymes required are active all the time. The exception to
> this is hormone-sensitive lipase, which releases fat into
> the blood from fat stores. This is deactivated by insulin
> released in response to high carb foods.
>
> > I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise
> > because I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and
> > start to get this Krebs Cycle thing going.
>
> The 20 minutes thing is how long it takes for the muscles
> to switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to
> using mostly fat (slower energy).
>
> > But an overweight runner like me isn't going to be able
> > to run for much more than 20 minutes.
>
> You may end up doing your joints more harm than good
> too. Long walks are the easiest way to lose fat
> through exercise, although long cycle rides and swims
> will work too.
>
> MattLB

In article <40c5ecf9$0$2932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, Patricia Heil wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus11156" <ignoramus11156@NOSPAM.11156.invalid>
> wrote in message news:ca4mrv$3oh$0@pita.alt.net...
>> In article <9502A8B4DB2A3471AE@130.133.1.4>, J.J. wrote:
>> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
>> > pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
>> >
>> > I have cut my calorie intake so I have a 1000 calorie
>> > deficit a day. I eat normally but less of everything. I
>> > would not find it difficult to have a greater calorie
>> > deficit bit I worry that I might lose muscle rather
>> > than fat.
>> >
>> > However I am almost totally INACTIVE during the day.
>> >
>> > I understand that in order to burn fat rather than
>> > muscle I need to get my body to release certain enzymes
>> > and that this can only be done through (aerobic)
>> > exercise. Something to do with the Krebs Cycle.
>>
>> A conventional wisdom is that to preserve muscle, you
>> need to exercise those muscles. It also states that
>> endurance exercise does not help retain muscle that is
>> not being exercised by that exercise.
>>
>> http://www.weightlossforall.com/aerobic%20exercise.htm
>>
>> > If that is correct then I will do some running. At my
>> > weight I might be able to run a mile or two every
>> > secoond or third day.
>>
>> You could also exercise on an elliptical machine or ride
>> a bicycle, which is easier on the knees.
>>
>> > I have heard that exercising your body too hard will
>> > not produce the necessary enzymes. Would sort of
>> > running pace over this sort of distance would be right?
>> >
>> > I wonder if running is the right sort of exercise
>> > because I think it takes 20 minutes to go aerobic and
>> > start to get this Krebs Cycle thing going. But an
>> > overweight runner like me isn't going to be able to run
>> > for much more than 20 minutes.
>>
>> Cardio is useful even if it does not help to preserve
>> your muscle mass, it is good for blood pressure, insulin
>> sensitivity, and all kinds of other things. So it is
>> worth doing, and resistance training is also worth doing.
>>
>> i
>
> I agree completely. I have heard you can still have a
> heart attack if you don't do cardio, no matter how much
> resistance work you do. But resistance work is better for
> building muscle. Both together help prevent or reverse
> osteoporosis. Walking also prevents two of the top 3
> cancers, and dementia, and diabetes.
>
>

Walking is, also, one of the most historically prevalent
human activities. Something people have been doing for a
hours every day winde prehistoric times.

i