hey all,
pretty basic question. I was just wondering when you run (in general) how much fat vs. how much muscle is being burned off? I tried asking many people this question and no one could really give me a an answer..I imagine it is primarily fat and only a small bit of muscle but am not sure.
Thanks

It depends on a lot of things. How long and at what pace, pre-post workout nutrition, genetics, etc.

What NJ Fighter said!

If u havnt eaten anytihin 4 a while and u decide 2 go 4 a run, u may start 2 burn muscle because there isnt much fat 2 burn

The way boxers run to lose fat, e.g. jogging, about 20% more fat is burned off running slowly (aerobically) than sprinting (anaroebically). Muscle is not being burned off given proper diet, muscle use, and enough protein intake. Diet without exericse results in muscle and fat loss....

Ur body will start to burn fat (and not carbs) only after nearly 20 minutes from starting cardio-fitness... but for best fat burning u should to work/run at ur 65-70% of ur MAX Hearth frequency (calculated: 220-age). Fat will be burnt, but with such training u'll lose a part of muscles too (if natural), of course u can't know how many u'll lose, it's not a rule (depends by genetic, diet, weight training...). Only mirror will say how many, but ur Bf and ur body will congratulate u for losing fat ;)

If u havnt eaten anytihin 4 a while and u decide 2 go 4 a run, u may start 2 burn muscle because there isnt much fat 2 burn

So if a guy has a 30 lbs beer gut, he has no fat to lose because he hasn't eaten for a while? Haha!

Look, it's a little more complex than what you're saying. It has to do with your insulin levels first of all.
Also, most people other than bodybuilders shouldn't be worried about losing muscle. It's not such a big deal, when you haven't trained yourself up to having 50 lbs more muscle than you would have "naturally." (And why would you be afraid to burn muscle in the first place, I thought everybody in this forum were of the opinion that muscle somehow makes a boxer slow and stiff?)

Ur body will start to burn fat (and not carbs) only after nearly 20 minutes from starting cardio-fitness... but for best fat burning u should to work/run at ur 65-70% of ur MAX Hearth frequency (calculated: 220-age). Fat will be burnt, but with such training u'll lose a part of muscles too (if natural), of course u can't know how many u'll lose, it's not a rule (depends by genetic, diet, weight training...). Only mirror will say how many, but ur Bf and ur body will congratulate u for losing fat ;)

The fat burning zone is a bunch of baloney. While it's true that the biggest percentage of the total calories burned will be from fat in this zone, working at a higher intensity will burn MORE CALORIES TOTAL, thereby making the amount of fat burned higher also. As an added bonus, high intensity keeps your metabolism working for hours after, adding to the fat loss potential.

The fat burning zone is a great tool for personal trainers and fitness gurus to get a lot of clients (and keep them) because what they're telling them is that it doesn't have to be so hard to lose that weight. Just go at a medium intensity, where you can be reasonably comfortable. It just doesn't work like that. Why would you want to work out for 2 hours every day to burn the amount of calories you could do in 30 minutes if you bust your ass? There's no substitute for hard work. If you have 20 minutes to train in, train as hard as you can for 20 minutes for optimal results. If you have 60 minutes, train for 60 minutes as hard as you can for optimal results. If you have 2 hours, obviously you can't train with the same intensity as you can for 20 minutes, but you should train as hard as you can, if you want optimal results.

The fat burning zone is a bunch of baloney. While it's true that the biggest percentage of the total calories burned will be from fat in this zone, working at a higher intensity will burn MORE CALORIES TOTAL, thereby making the amount of fat burned higher also. As an added bonus, high intensity keeps your metabolism working for hours after, adding to the fat loss potential.

The fat burning zone is a great tool for personal trainers and fitness gurus to get a lot of clients (and keep them) because what they're telling them is that it doesn't have to be so hard to lose that weight. Just go at a medium intensity, where you can be reasonably comfortable. It just doesn't work like that. Why would you want to work out for 2 hours every day to burn the amount of calories you could do in 30 minutes if you bust your ass? There's no substitute for hard work. If you have 20 minutes to train in, train as hard as you can for 20 minutes for optimal results. If you have 60 minutes, train for 60 minutes as hard as you can for optimal results. If you have 2 hours, obviously you can't train with the same intensity as you can for 20 minutes, but you should train as hard as you can, if you want optimal results.

I agree with u. But if u'll have more intense cardio training, u'll burn no fat (u'll make "running resistance") and u won't be able to do good training for 1-2 hours because u'll get tired before. And to train 2 hours (at 60-70%MHf) mean to loss more fat than 1 hour's training (at a bigger hearth frequency), of course. Losing calories doesn't always mean to lose fat :P ;)

I agree with u. But if u'll have more intense cardio training, u'll burn no fat (u'll make "running resistance") and u won't be able to do good training for 1-2 hours because u'll get tired before. And to train 2 hours (at 60-70%MHf) mean to loss more fat than 1 hour's training (at a bigger hearth frequency), of course. Losing calories doesn't always mean to lose fat :P ;)

Look, you need to spend more calories than you eat to lose weight. The more intensely you train, the more calories you'll burn, not only during the workout, but also after. It's not a coincidense that the elite athletes you see working their ass off have very low BF percentages, whereas the "fatzone tourists" never really seem to get anywhere.

Your shape determines how long you can go for at a given intensity. If you just go at a low intensity, you're not gonna improve your shape much. You will improve a little though. This means that if it took you 1½ hours to burn 500 calories when you started, after a while, you'll have to go 2 hours to burn the same amount. Soon you'll have to go 2½ hours, and then 3. Let's say half those cals are fat, that means you'll have to go longer and longer at a tedious pace to lose 250 cals of fat. You'll only lose this fat if you eat less than you spend every day. 3 slices of bread more than you've spent during that day, and you've been doing 2-3 hours of boring cardio that day for nothing.

Bottom line: You have to burn more calories than you eat to lose weight. Training in the fat burning zone ensures that you'll burn very few calories during your workout, even if you go for a couple of hours. High intensity will have you burning lots of calories during and for hours AFTER your workout. AND you get in great shape that is functional for all kinds of sports.

Here's an aptly titled article on the subject. If you google it, I'm sure you can find others. Fat burning zone = bull

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-4-88-278-4219-1,00.html

Here's another:

http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

And another:

http://www.gncproperformance.com/articles/article/Default.aspx?id=31&lang=en

One more:

http://calorielab.com/news/2005/06/11/the-fat-burning-zone-explained/

aaaand one more:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n2_v15/ai_19205605

This one's my favorite:

http://alwyncosgrove.com/ModShow/ShowPage/41530

"Aerobic training is useless. Take a look at aerobics instructors. They are fat. Sprinters (20 seconds or less of cardio work) are leaner than marathoners (2 hours plus). If more is not better, and in fact in the example I gave less is actually better, why do more?

I've always felt that the core problem with aerobic training has always been the prescription. As there is an upper limit to the aerobic state, the only way to further increase the participants fitness is to do anaerobic work (which they have yet to do any training in that state) or to increase the duration.

Doing aerobic training will not prepare you for anaerobic training -- so we have a problem. And just doing more and more and more at each stage is just dumb.

As for the fat burning zone -- the ridiculous idea that we somehow burn less fat if we work too hard ... PLEASE! If that logic were true -- and we burn less fat (I know it's true as a percentage but it's not true as a whole) at lower intensities -- then the best exercise for fat loss must be sitting on the couch right?

The only cardio training I recommend is short rest intervals in the weight room and some kind of interval training. I never recommend aerobics. A total waste of time."

Look, you need to spend more calories than you eat to lose weight. The more intensely you train, the more calories you'll burn, not only during the workout, but also after. It's not a coincidense that the elite athletes you see working their ass off have very low BF percentages, whereas the "fatzone tourists" never really seem to get anywhere.

Your shape determines how long you can go for at a given intensity. If you just go at a low intensity, you're not gonna improve your shape much. You will improve a little though. This means that if it took you 1½ hours to burn 500 calories when you started, after a while, you'll have to go 2 hours to burn the same amount. Soon you'll have to go 2½ hours, and then 3. Let's say half those cals are fat, that means you'll have to go longer and longer at a tedious pace to lose 250 cals of fat. You'll only lose this fat if you eat less than you spend every day. 3 slices of bread more than you've spent during that day, and you've been doing 2-3 hours of boring cardio that day for nothing.

Bottom line: You have to burn more calories than you eat to lose weight. Training in the fat burning zone ensures that you'll burn very few calories during your workout, even if you go for a couple of hours. High intensity will have you burning lots of calories during and for hours AFTER your workout. AND you get in great shape that is functional for all kinds of sports.

Well, but if u'll have an high intensity cardio u'll necessary loose some muscles mass, for metabolism changing, as u said. If, in the other way, u'll have a cardio training while in the fat burning zone, u'll lose more fat than with an higher intensity also saving muscles (not 100%, certainly). Ur metabolism will keep in "mind" every training and after sometimes we should train for a longer time (ex.: 1st week 40'; 2nd week 50'; 3rd week 60'...) for burn more, but changing again cardio training u'll be able to "confuse" metabolism, continuing to burn. As with weight for build mass, as in every training is good to change and ciclize all!

However fat is first enemy of muscles definition and own agility, with a good diet (little ipocaloric, for burn more than we eat ;)), a not very intense training and such well made cardio, u'll preserve lipogenesis and u'll loose more fat (weight) than muscles, as our target is to preserve mass loosing weight.

Well, but if u'll have an high intensity cardio u'll necessary loose some muscles mass, for metabolism changing, as u said. If, in the other way, u'll have a cardio training while in the fat burning zone, u'll lose more fat than with an higher intensity also saving muscles (not 100%, certainly). Ur metabolism will keep in "mind" every training and after sometimes we should train for a longer time (ex.: 1st week 40'; 2nd week 50'; 3rd week 60'...) for burn more, but changing again cardio training u'll be able to "confuse" metabolism, continuing to burn. As with weight for build mass, as in every training is good to change and ciclize all!

However fat is first enemy of muscles definition and own agility, with a good diet (little ipocaloric, for burn more than we eat ;)), a not very intense training and such well made cardio, u'll preserve lipogenesis and u'll loose more fat (weight) than muscles, as our target is to preserve mass loosing weight.

I guess you didn't read any of the links I posted... :rolleyes:
I'll agree as far as diversity is good. Other than that, you're looking at things through the eyes of a bodybuilder, where muscle mass is important. This is primarily because they've built up a lot of muscle mass they wouldn't have "naturally." This means they'll lose it easier again, until they get down to that "natural" level. A boxer shouldn't be too worried about losing muscle mass. Boxers need to worry about being extremely fit, and keeping weight. This is NOT done with low intensity cardio.
Another thing you've got wrong is your claim that high intensity work (I don't know which kind you're referring to, but I've been referring to anaerobic BOXING work) will lose more muscle than medium intensity cardio. If what you're claiming is true, boxers would soon lose ALL their muscle mass with the amount of high intensity training they do. This is clearly not the case. Long distance runners, on the other hand, are TRAINED down to a very slim size. This is because they use primarily red aerobic muscle fibres, that are the smaller fibres, less prone to hypertrophy. They don't stimulate their anaerobic fibres, which are the ones that respond best to hypertrophy, causing them to atrophize. Extended aerobic work causes atrophy (muscle loss), and makes the body more efficient in working on fat. More efficient meaning that you can go on for longer on the same amount of fat than before, which is clearly NOT what you want when you want to get rid of fat!
anaerobic work stimulates both aerobic and anaerobic muscle fibres, requires more calories, and puts your metabolism into high gear for hours after workouts. Oh, and it also gets you in shape for boxing, which medium to low intensity cardio won't!

(And why would you be afraid to burn muscle in the first place, I thought everybody in this forum were of the opinion that muscle somehow makes a boxer slow and stiff?)I think you just touched a few people's nerves with that comment.

Everyone wants to look like Ronnie Coleman but perform like Ali:confused:


Back to the original subject. PunchDrunk really said it all but it really comes down to calories in vs. calories out. Of course it doesn't work if you eat 300 calories and burn 2000 calories. But you get what I mean.

I guess you didn't read any of the links I posted... :rolleyes:
I'll agree as far as diversity is good. Other than that, you're looking at things through the eyes of a bodybuilder, where muscle mass is important. This is primarily because they've built up a lot of muscle mass they wouldn't have "naturally." This means they'll lose it easier again, until they get down to that "natural" level. A boxer shouldn't be too worried about losing muscle mass. Boxers need to worry about being extremely fit, and keeping weight. This is NOT done with low intensity cardio.
Another thing you've got wrong is your claim that high intensity work (I don't know which kind you're referring to, but I've been referring to anaerobic BOXING work) will lose more muscle than medium intensity cardio. If what you're claiming is true, boxers would soon lose ALL their muscle mass with the amount of high intensity training they do. This is clearly not the case. Long distance runners, on the other hand, are TRAINED down to a very slim size. This is because they use primarily red aerobic muscle fibres, that are the smaller fibres, less prone to hypertrophy. They don't stimulate their anaerobic fibres, which are the ones that respond best to hypertrophy, causing them to atrophize. Extended aerobic work causes atrophy (muscle loss), and makes the body more efficient in working on fat. More efficient meaning that you can go on for longer on the same amount of fat than before, which is clearly NOT what you want when you want to get rid of fat!
anaerobic work stimulates both aerobic and anaerobic muscle fibres, requires more calories, and puts your metabolism into high gear for hours after workouts. Oh, and it also gets you in shape for boxing, which medium to low intensity cardio won't!

Saying true, i missed ur last post with links! :p

I was speaking only about cardio, not about other trainings. If i do an intense weight or boxing training, i'll make an anaerobic training and (if i make the same ipocaloric diet) loosing mass is bigger than lesser intensity training (with cardio, for example). This is the main thread, i answered not as a bodybuilder and not as a boxer. If i ask myself a boxer's training (or bodybuilder's), i'll certainly prefer anaerobic condition training, with high intensity and fast/explosive movements (white fibers=>mass+strength), keeping/gaining mass with an ipercaloric diet (calories per day will specife if will be loosing or gaining body weight, which muscle and fat). Anyway i think the best metod to loose fat is just to train without cardio (only boxe's + weight) with an ipocaloric diet.

However, seems we walk on different thinking ways! :boxing: ;)

Your English isn't that good, so I'm not sure about everything you wrote, but as far as I can see you're now conceding the point that high intensity is more effective than the fat burning hoax... erm zone? The point you still disagree with me on is whether anaerobic training (high intensity) or aerobic (medium/low intensity) burns more muscle? Look at a sprinter (anaerobic) or a boxer (mainly anaerobic). Compare that to a 10k (mainly aerobic) or marathon runner (aerobic). Who's got the least muscle mass? The runners! It seems odd to say the least that a boxer, who not only trains mainly anaerobic training, but also has to really keep his BF% and weight to an absolute minimum, doesn't look like a complete skeleton (which, incidentally, the aerobic runners do!), if things are as you say!?!?
You're quite welcome to find a reference to this claim (which is pretty much the last straw you're holding on to, after conceding your initial point about the fat burning hoax), and link it. :)

Here's a little something I found that say the opposite of what you claim: "Activities that require above-average levels of anaerobic endurance include a 50-meter dash or swim, a pole vault, and a weight-lifting competition. These activities involve the contractions of fast fibers. The energy for the first 10–20 seconds of activity comes from the ATP and CP reserves of the cytoplasm. As these reserves dwindle, glycogen breakdown and glycolysis provide additional energy. Athletes training to improve anaerobic endurance perform frequent, brief, intensive workouts that stimulate muscle hypertrophy."

Taken from here:
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martinidemo/chapter10/medialib/CH10/html/ch10_5_3.html

Your English isn't that good, so I'm not sure about everything you wrote, but as far as I can see you're now conceding the point that high intensity is more effective than the fat burning hoax... erm zone? The point you still disagree with me on is whether anaerobic training (high intensity) or aerobic (medium/low intensity) burns more muscle? Look at a sprinter (anaerobic) or a boxer (mainly anaerobic). Compare that to a 10k (mainly aerobic) or marathon runner (aerobic). Who's got the least muscle mass? The runners! It seems odd to say the least that a boxer, who not only trains mainly anaerobic training, but also has to really keep his BF% and weight to an absolute minimum, doesn't look like a complete skeleton (which, incidentally, the aerobic runners do!), if things are as you say!?!?
You're quite welcome to find a reference to this claim (which is pretty much the last straw you're holding on to, after conceding your initial point about the fat burning hoax), and link it. :)

Here's a little something I found that say the opposite of what you claim: "Activities that require above-average levels of anaerobic endurance include a 50-meter dash or swim, a pole vault, and a weight-lifting competition. These activities involve the contractions of fast fibers. The energy for the first 10–20 seconds of activity comes from the ATP and CP reserves of the cytoplasm. As these reserves dwindle, glycogen breakdown and glycolysis provide additional energy. Athletes training to improve anaerobic endurance perform frequent, brief, intensive workouts that stimulate muscle hypertrophy."

Taken from here:
http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/martinidemo/chapter10/medialib/CH10/html/ch10_5_3.html

I'm sorry for my "bad" english, i tried to be clear but seems i wasn't. I try to explain again my thinkings...

All in that link is exactly what i said u: ANAEROBIC training stimulate muscles hypertrophy, make calories burn and losing weight. But hypertrophy is a continue fibers "destroying" and "rebuilding", which need an hypercaloric diet (with many proteins, carbs and fats) for make that rebuilding really bigger (=gaining muscles), and u'll weight/mass will raise up. And if we want to put off weight (fat)? We should to use an ipocaloric diet (with low fat and carbs) who will help to lose weight, but will make our muscles smaller (for that "destroying" and "rebuilding"). Then, with an AEROBIC training u won't stimulate hypertrophy (so won't start that "destroying") and u'll muscles won't lost theire volume while under ipocaloric diet.

Am i not right? I'm ready to learn by ur comments :)

P.s.: U can't compair sprinters with marathon runners: the firsts train theire fast fibers (more hypertrphy) for take more speed and acceleration (explosivity); the marathons have to improve theire slow fibers having lesser hypertrophy (better for them: less weight, less fatigue!) but gaining in endurance.

sorry big baby but me and im sure a lot of other people still believe punch drunk. It makes a lot more sense and he's a trainer. Unless you are too you should make absolutely sure about what your talking about. This isn't a stab at you this is just me saying to everyone to get your facts right before you tell people the wrong thing and they do it.


:boxing:

PunchDrunk is right on what he's saying but comparing sprinters to marathon runners isn't a good example. A marathon runner eats almost nothing except carbs with no or little protein and fats. I'm sure if they ate high protein, high carbs, moderate fat 8000 calorie diet and weight trained along with their marathon running training, they would be pretty buff.

I'm sorry for my "bad" english, i tried to be clear but seems i wasn't. I try to explain again my thinkings...

All in that link is exactly what i said u: ANAEROBIC training stimulate muscles hypertrophy, make calories burn and losing weight. But hypertrophy is a continue fibers "destroying" and "rebuilding", which need an hypercaloric diet (with many proteins, carbs and fats) for make that rebuilding really bigger (=gaining muscles), and u'll weight/mass will raise up. And if we want to put off weight (fat)? We should to use an ipocaloric diet (with low fat and carbs) who will help to lose weight, but will make our muscles smaller (for that "destroying" and "rebuilding"). Then, with an AEROBIC training u won't stimulate hypertrophy (so won't start that "destroying") and u'll muscles won't lost theire volume while under ipocaloric diet.

Am i not right? I'm ready to learn by ur comments :)

P.s.: U can't compair sprinters with marathon runners: the firsts train theire fast fibers (more hypertrphy) for take more speed and acceleration (explosivity); the marathons have to improve theire slow fibers having lesser hypertrophy (better for them: less weight, less fatigue!) but gaining in endurance.

The first part is pretty much right. Except for the focus on the muscle loss, which, as I said earlier, really isn't an issue for a boxer, except in very extreme cases of undereating. Muscle loss is just not an issue, unless you have a large amount of built up muscle, and you undereat at the same time.
Hence my example with the sprinters and the long distance runners, which I stand by. The reason being that they're at both ends of the spectrum, muscle wise AND training wise. One group does anaerobic, high intensity training and the other does aerobic, medium intensity training. One group is muscular, one is not. If what you claimed about muscle loss were true, it would be the other way around.

How can you claim that link said what you said? :confused:
You said that the fat burning zone was best for fat loss, and that high intensity training will make you lose muscle. That is the opposite of what that link says!

The first part is pretty much right. Except for the focus on the muscle loss, which, as I said earlier, really isn't an issue for a boxer, except in very extreme cases of undereating. Muscle loss is just not an issue, unless you have a large amount of built up muscle, and you undereat at the same time.
Hence my example with the sprinters and the long distance runners, which I stand by. The reason being that they're at both ends of the spectrum, muscle wise AND training wise. One group does anaerobic, high intensity training and the other does aerobic, medium intensity training. One group is muscular, one is not. If what you claimed about muscle loss were true, it would be the other way around.

How can you claim that link said what you said? :confused:
You said that the fat burning zone was best for fat loss, and that high intensity training will make you lose muscle. That is the opposite of what that link says!

I said not that general HIT make u loose muscles, i always use HIT for make my muscles growth with weights, but when u want to break down fat it's not good, because with such training and with a lowcalories diet u'll loose too many muscles! I know that for a boxer it's not an issue to loose much muscles mass, and only in this case anaerobic training is a very good way for loosing weight, it's true, loosing weight is only "to burn more than eaten"!

But, again, the main question was: which running type will keep more muscles while loosing weight? The answer IMHO is "65-75% CARDIO training with a lowcalories diet" because of cardio make our body "work" with fat's storage, won't break many fibers and the muscle's mass loosing will be smaller.

In short, depending by diet u're using and which target u're looking for, u should to decide which training type is the best for loose weight.

U're very good trainer man, i'm sure u know much more than me but i still believe at what I wrote here. ;)

sorry big baby but me and im sure a lot of other people still believe punch drunk. It makes a lot more sense and he's a trainer. Unless you are too you should make absolutely sure about what your talking about. This isn't a stab at you this is just me saying to everyone to get your facts right before you tell people the wrong thing and they do it.


:boxing:

I just said my opinion sharing my knowledge, i certainly don't want to make anyone wrong. All i said i tried on MYSELF and on my bodybuilder's friends which i helped for this target (loosing more fat than muscles) with very good results. On a boxer loosing muscles is not an issue, of course, but that guy asked how to loose lesser muscles possible, i just answered as i know ;)

:boxing:

who ever said that high intesity doesnt burn fat is speaking crap - doing sprints with low recovery time is the best thing to burn fat - you can also do this with exercise bikes - there is a theory set out by some guy cant remember his name that you can burn more fat in 4 mins using interval training than you can when doing 30 mins on an exercise bike - dont know if its true.

He's a Japanese physiologist by the name of Tabata. And yes, he has proved it in a study. :)