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 - 08 Jun 2004 16:43 GMT
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 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
Patricia Heil - 08 Jun 2004 17:44 GMT
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> > (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> 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.
Ignoramus11156 - 08 Jun 2004 17:50 GMT
>> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
>> > (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> 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
Patricia Heil - 08 Jun 2004 17:43 GMT
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.
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> thing going. But an overweight runner like me isn't going to be
> able to run for much more than 20 minutes.
Neil Gendzwill - 08 Jun 2004 17:58 GMT
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 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
Sam - 10 Jun 2004 05:31 GMT
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> > (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> 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.
Donovan Rebbechi - 08 Jun 2004 18:11 GMT
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 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,

Signature
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
J.J. - 09 Jun 2004 23:51 GMT
>> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
>> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> 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?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> You're making this way more complicated than it is. This is a
> red herring.
Donovan Rebbechi - 10 Jun 2004 01:18 GMT
>> 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.
It can. Think about it -- if you lift weights, do you think you'll be stronger
than you would be if you didn't lift any weights ? Not only does it make sense,
it also happens to be true.
>> 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)?
Depends on how fat you are. If you're a fat couch potato, it might be possible.
If you're at 10% body fat and already lifting weights, then such a deficit will
make you much weaker in very little time.
You're going to lose a substantial amount of *lean tissue* either way, but
"lean tissue" is not the same thing as "muscle tissue".
Cheers,

Signature
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
J.J. - 10 Jun 2004 20:02 GMT
>>> For preserving muscle tissue, lifting weights is better than
>>> any cardio. (You may even gain some)
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> either way, but "lean tissue" is not the same thing as "muscle
> tissue".
Does "lean tissue" also include things like bones, water, skin,
organs, etc?
Donovan Rebbechi - 10 Jun 2004 20:32 GMT
>>>> For preserving muscle tissue, lifting weights is better than
>>>> any cardio. (You may even gain some)
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Does "lean tissue" also include things like bones, water, skin,
> organs, etc?
Lean body mass includes anything that is not body fat. (That's a "yes").
Cheers,

Signature
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
mwright - 09 Jun 2004 03:06 GMT
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> 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
MattLB - 09 Jun 2004 14:21 GMT
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> 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
Doug Freese - 09 Jun 2004 15:24 GMT
> 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
gym gravity - 09 Jun 2004 15:43 GMT
> If I'm running or racing long and need to
> replenish my body with calories what would you suggest I/we eat/drink?
YOU need carbs. The OP needs to loose 30 pounds, wants keep some
muscle, and doesn't give a damn about how fast he's going.
J.J. - 10 Jun 2004 00:04 GMT
>> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
>> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to using
> mostly fat (slower energy).
Sam - 10 Jun 2004 05:39 GMT
> >> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> >> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> got the Krebs cycle going. Of course, i may have muddled up what
> he wrote but I don't think I have.
Bailey wrote some idiotic stuff and misunderstood a lot. The Krebs
Cycle is going while you sit and read this. Just exercise, get off your a.s
(not to be rude) and move. At this point just walk, then walk-run, then run
if you want.
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> not lose fat even if one was on a low calorie diet. Is this
> correct?
Restricting food intake will lead to weight and fat loss; however,
you do not get other health benefits such as increased HDL that you get with
exercise. Also, restricting food intake works for a while but most (vastly
most) "fall off" and start to eat big again and put the weight back on.
Some of this is because muscle mass is lost so metabolic rate drops.
> Can anyone please advise.
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> > switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to using
> > mostly fat (slower energy).
gentolm - 16 Jun 2004 09:33 GMT
jj
i have all of covert books and most vids - and follow his thoughts
he states that you should exercise with big muscle(hams - quads/legs and
butt) and do air-robic(sp)
that would be running about 30 minutes every other day , now i do 3.7-4
ever other day
i exercise(run)at 70-78% of my maxHR ,,, that about covers his ideas. i
am about 9-11 % body fat.
i would suggest that follow that program should net you his results
just my 2 cents
plodzilla
> >> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200
> >> pounds (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> > switch from using mostly glycogen (quick energy) to using
> > mostly fat (slower energy).
Sam - 10 Jun 2004 05:35 GMT
> > I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> > (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> 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.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> MattLB
MattLB - 16 Jun 2004 14:13 GMT
> > 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> WRONG!!!! What one "burns" has nothing to do with weight loss.
Of course it does. When people talk about weight loss they're usually
talking about fat loss. If you use fat for ATP production and breathe it
out as CO2 then it's lost. If you use glucose for ATP production then
you breathe that out as CO2 and the fat stays put.
> The
> key is to create an energy deficit. Get off the "carbs are bad" lie.
It's an "insulin is bad" position actually. Specifically, insulin
inhibits mobilisation of fatty acids, reducing the amount of fat your
body burns.
> 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.
Of course they aren't fat - that would slow them down. With all the
training they do they'd be hard pushed to get fat anyway. Even if the
training itself doesn't use fat, the recovery afterwards will.
MattLB
Donovan Rebbechi - 20 Jun 2004 10:58 GMT
>> > 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
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> out as CO2 then it's lost. If you use glucose for ATP production then you
> breathe that out as CO2 and the fat stays put.
If you hold your energy intake constant, and burn more calories, then does it
stay put ? Where do the extra calories required come from ? One can only carry
around a few thousand calories of glucose.
In other words, you're wrong and Sam is right.
>> key is to create an energy deficit. Get off the "carbs are bad" lie.
>
> It's an "insulin is bad" position actually. Specifically, insulin
> inhibits mobilisation of fatty acids, reducing the amount of fat your
> body burns.
And the extra calories come from thin air, right ?
> training they do they'd be hard pushed to get fat anyway. Even if the
> training itself doesn't use fat, the recovery afterwards will.
Bingo.
Cheers,

Signature
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Sam - 10 Jun 2004 05:28 GMT
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.
> I am in the process of losing weight. I weigh about 200 pounds
> (90kg) and need to lose 30 pounds.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> thing going. But an overweight runner like me isn't going to be
> able to run for much more than 20 minutes.