fat burn question

[craig scott]

I have been having some nice results with fitness increase and fat burn since I got back into cycling 3 months ago. I do not expect too much, and try to retsrain my desire to burn myself out so the weight loss can be slow and more permanent (Well thats what I seem to have geaned from info so far).
In the 3 months i have gone from 96.5 kg (187cm) to 89kg and slowly falling.
It appears the first bit is easy (maybe a lot of water loss too), so getting to 93.5 was fast, then things slowed ( I'm still doing around 150km's per week MTB mixed hills/road).
What I would love to know is where the fat falls from , and is it only fat , does muscle diminish aswell as weight loss rates slow when the body becomes leaner.
Being ego driven to a point, I'm quite keen to see a bit more definition in the abdominal area, though it seems its the last place it wants to disappear from.As I am losing kg's, will my ab area slowly begin to slim, or do I have to focus with different excercise routines?
Very sorry for the rather layman language here, I'm a bit new to this.
Has anyone any comments/
Cheers , Craig.

 

[RickF]

What you are experiencing is normal. The first 10 pounds or so (4.5 kg) come off fairly quickly. After that, it gets more difficult. This is true regardless of how much excess weight you have. Fat is of two types. Peritoneal fat is much more metabolically active and is added and lost very quickly. Subcutaneous fat is less metabolically active and thus, harder to lose. What typically happens is that the peritoneal fat is lost quickly, then there is a plateau while the body re-equilibrates fat from the subcutaneous fat to the peritoneal fat. If you continue to exercise (and do not increase your food intake), the typical pattern is to lose 10 pounds, plateau for a few weeks, lose a few more pounds, plateau, lose, plateau . . .

If you continue to exercise and are eating properly, it is unlikely that the weight lost will be muscle. In fact, you might increase muscle at the same time as you are losing fat - another reason for the irratic weight loss. If you try to lose weight by simply starving yourself, then you will lose muscle. The body can store energy as glycogen and fat, but regardless of how overweight you are, the body does not have a store of protein (other than as muscle). If the diet does not contain enough protein, muscle will be lost.

 

[Hookyrider]

Yep - on target. And that's another reason folks get frustrated and stop working out.



You will not loose body weight/fat in a linear fashion. It’ll come off in spurts, sometimes fast other times it’ll seem like it’s not coming off at all. Getting a Tanita or other scale that measures body fat can help illustrate that for you. Also know that muscle weighs more per volume than fat. So it’s possible to continue to loose inches, and maintain or gain weight! I my own case when I returned to cycling about 12 years ago after I had lost 8 pounds, I went up a size in pants!



Initially rapid weight lose will be due to water loss. Sedentary person’s muscles are always topped off with glycogen, and glycogen always has water with it. Burning this “muscle sugar” will cause this excess water to be eliminated from your system. Hence “rapid weight loss” after the initial rush you should be able to gauge how your body wants to work.



Just remember you don’t have to kill yourself, just be consistent, and learn about good nutrition from some quality books i.e. Nancy Clark, Chris Carmichael’s food book, or other registered dietitian or Md. But not from the dozens of quacks out there that’ll have you thinking all kinds of goofy things. Proper nutrition will really get you on the fast track towards getting the excess off, while staying fueled for your next workout, and be able to make it through the work day without ruining all the hard work you did last night on the trainer!



Good luck



HR

 

[craig scott]

Thank you so much Rick and Hooky for the responses.

You both hit the nail on the head as far as satisfying my question goes. It's very cool to know that you can get some feedback for what probably appears to be a straightforward and obvious query to a lot of folks; thanks for helping out the newbie.

Cheers ,Craig.

 

[Hookyrider]

Thank you so much Rick and Hooky for the responses.
You both hit the nail on the head as far as satisfying my question goes. It's very cool to know that you can get some feedback for what probably appears to be a straightforward and obvious query to a lot of folks; thanks for helping out the newbie. Cheers ,Craig.

Craig,
the othe piece is if you are really looking for some definition, eventually you will have to turn to resistance training i.e. weights. Fat loss goes pretty much in the opposite direction you put it on - like the tide rolling up the beach. The last place it touches, is the first place it leaves. For most of us guys the ol' gut is first, and so we have to endure a while till the tide subsides...

You body can and will metabolise muscle, if you are not eating enough - it's actually more expediant than burning fat! I'd have to pull a book off the shelf to describe the whole process, but burning muscle involves less steps than fat. So it's important to eat, and eat properly. Increasing muscle mass will increase the calories you burn even at rest - another reson to consider hitting the gym. Me I do push-ups, and a whole abdominal routine, and some light yoga, and that seems to work fairly good.

No problem - I've been through some physical trainer courses, I've allowed my certifications to lapse, but it doen't mean I have forgotten all my lessons I like sharing the info...

HR

 

[JTE83]

I went from 205 lbs to 139.2 lbs in 2 years. According to my Tanita scale and computed lean mass I also lost lean mass while not dieting that much. I mostly lost weight by burning off my fat from 38 + mile workouts.

Losing the 1st 10 lbs was easy, while when you're down to 12% B.F. it's hard to get to 10 -8 % or lower. I didn't have abs definition at 12% B.F., but at least I did not have any love handles anymore.

 

[Hookyrider]

Loosing muscle is easier than loosing fat it seems, it's part of how we are wired up. Back in the stone age getting food was hard, so having unnecessary muscle mass was not a good thing - burns too many calories. Our world is evolving faster than our bodies are, something folks tend to forget...

You are right, the leaner you get the "tougher" it gets. To dip below 12-13% I really had to change my diet, and be more selective of what and how much I ate. Now it seems normal for my body to hover around 10%, and I'm not so careful. I can say now my body knows when it needs something, or not. For example last Thanksgiving I ate like a madman, a few years ago I would have been ready to eat a midnight snack, and be eating breakfast without a thought - body says "man I'm hungry" eat -eventhough I'd be filled to the gills. Now... I wasn't even hungry again until Dinner time the next day - basically I ate virtually nothing, but drank water - and felt perfectly normal the whole day. It wasn't a decision not to eat, my body was telling me it had had enough. Also, I've decieded less than 10% doens't work for me. Athletically I feel unstopable being a little leaner, but I get sick so easy, and that is a drag. Last year was the last straw on being super lean...

RH

 

[RickF]

I went from 205 lbs to 139.2 lbs in 2 years.

When you weighed 205 poinds you needed more muscle mass just to support the extra weight. At 139.2 pounds, you need less muscle to move your body around. As with everything, it is all about balance. This is one of the reasons that the formulas to determine lean body mass are not very accurate. Unless you are bebridden, as weight increases, even if most of it is fat, muscle mass increases just from moving the extra weight around.

 

[Future-pro]

I read somewhere that it is important to make sure you take all your vitamins vitamin b i think it was cos that assists in burning fat