File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Theoretically, /fit/, If I were to take up endurance running--say, marathon running--and made sure to eat a sufficient amount every half mile of my run (say 50 calories of pure simple fructose), would I keep muscle and lose fat? Would this not be the quickest way to safely lose bodyfat, assuming no injures arise?
>> Anonymous
>>296729say 50 calories of pure simple fructose

You seem to have no idea what nutrition is.

If you eat healthy 20% fat 20% protiein 60% carbs and calories below this http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/metric-bmr-calculator.php you will lose fat and hopefully gain muscle.
>> Anonymous
go for it, PURE SUGAR is fun
>> Anonymous
>>296752
Hey punk, was my question not well posed enough for you?

I'm saying if you eat the carbs as you're running, actively running. I know damn well how good the ratios are for losing weight on a more general day-long basis. But I'm saying during the exercise of running, isolated, would a frequent carb load prevent muscle loss DURING the run, and continue to burn fat as you go longer and longer?

Energy from [body]fat increases with increasing exercise intensity. Running is certainly more intense than walking, although it's not really up there with weight lifting or HIIT--but the advantage is that it burns calories with relative ease and can be endured for a long time. By my understanding, 10% of the calories expended in running will be directly from fat stores, the other 90% from glycogen--muscle glycogen or glucose in short-term storage. So my question for someone with an idea of what nutrition is and how it can be effectively used in exercise circumstances is this: does a frequent, healthy carb load during endurance running make for an active, stable fatburning mechanism?
>> Anonymous
>>296765would a frequent carb load prevent muscle loss

WELL THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296752
>>296759
>>296771
>> Anonymous
OP here. Forgot about something... let's say we add 10 calories from protein every half-mile as well, for a net of 60 calories every half mile.
>> Anonymous
>>296765

No, it wouldn't, because if the body is getting it's energy from a carbohydrate, why would it need to burn it's fat stores.
>> Anonymous
hmmm. interesting question. i'm not so sure OP. wouldn't it need to store as glycogen so as not to impact on muscle stores first? i don't think this sort of thing can be measured so specifically. why a run anyway? can't you take it down to a slow run or jog?
>> Anonymous
>>296788
oh good point. there's your answer OP. pretty much /thread.
>> Anonymous
>>296788
We're talking marathon running here.
>> Anonymous
ITT: nobody knows anything.

http://www.marathonrookie.com/the-wall.html
>> Anonymous
>>296815

It's>>296788here again. The only real way to get some benefit from carb loading during a endurance event is if you're already skinny with extremely low body fat as it is. If you have really low BF, the body is going to catabolize the muscles for energy. So loading carbs during the event would provide readily available energy, would simulate what fat stores are for, and help to not eat away at the muscles. Taking in fast dissolving carbs during a marathon at a normal, fit body fat percentage (10-15%) would do nothing to help burn fat faster, but it would give you a tremendous energy boost. Carbs are the preferred fuel to burn as they're the easiest to break down, the body will go through those stores first, then turn to fat stores, then turn to breaking down protein. Obviously it's more complicated then that, but that's a good general way to say it. When you burn through your muscle glycogen first and are running on body fat stores, then introduce a quick dissolving carbohydrate (ie energy gels), the body will switch back to it's preferred fuel.
>> Anonymous
>>296840
No. Look at>>296825
>> Anonymous
>>296847

Why don't you look at faggot, it says the exact same thing I said, except mine actually answers his question.
>> Anonymous
>>296851
No idiot. When you deplete your glycogen stores, you can't perform at the same level. This is why he wants to have fast absorbing carbs. If he wants to successfully complete a marathon in a decent amount of time, he's going to need carbs.>>296788was a stupid post because you were ignoring the big picture. In the end, calories were burned. More calories burned than calories consumed = fucking weight loss.
>> Anonymous
>>296862
yeah but that's not what he's asking. he wants to know if it'll be fat and the fructose consumed not muscle mass that will be lost. the distinction. make it
>> Anonymous
OP here and back again. Theoretically, let's say every mile ran requires 100 calories of energy. So every half mile, 50 calories are needed. What if I intake 40 calories of a good fast-absorbing simple sugar carbohydrate, and 8 calories from protein just to play it safe and muscle spare.

In this way, a small deficit in calories exists actively--and take note that your body cannot use 100% dietary macronutrients for all active energy needs. Only so much can be absorbed at once, that's why 10% of it would ideally come straight off bodyfat stores at all times. A marathon killing 262 straight calories from bodyfat? Big woop. But that's why we throw in the small deficit with carbs always being tossed in the mix, to achieve more direct fat burning.

Am I wrong in this thinking? I'm already on a good bodyfat-killing diet, but I'm getting a little impatient with the mirror these days even if my progress is better than usual. I want to maximize the speed of this process, and hence this idea. I've ran marathons before but switched to sprinting and HIIT for bodyfat loss (plus lifting) due to the effect endurance running allegedly had on muscle. That is why I ask this question.
>> Anonymous
>>296862

Be polite or get fucked. You don't get it, when muscle glycogen is gone, its gone. Guess what fat mass is? Stored energy. Once you're body is oxidizing fat as energy, you don't need carbs. Thats why you lose weight. And guess what happens if you have fat mass and are doing a micro carb load during an event? You're not going to burn fat because you're burning the carbs for energy.
>> Anonymous
>>296862
Weight loss =/= fat loss

And not true in its most simple form either. I gained 7 lb somehow under a healthy, small caloric deficit coupled with weightlifting and running--all from muscle while dumping some fat.
>> Anonymous
>>296880
But the beauty of my idea is that a small deficit still exists where the fat loss could potentially happen? Am I wrong? The whole point of micro carb plus protein loading is so that the muscles don't break down at any point in the run.
>> Anonymous
>>296887

I see, but then your fat loss would be minimal in comparison to the same run without the micro loading. You would have to do more distance or run at a higher speed to get the equivalent amount of fat loss. You'd save your muscles from getting catabolized, but shit, is it really worth the effort and time spent? HIIT seems like a better choice if you're worried about maintaining muscle and burning fat.
>> Anonymous
>>296917
You're the man. I should know better than to trust myself and the crazy ideas I get when I'm running long distances. Another one used to be that if I salt myself before I run, the fat would just fly out of me due to diffusion... goddamn. Thanks, you saved me some major hours.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296917
>>296880
>>296869
>>296840
>carb loading
Don't listen to this faggot. He knows nothing.

CARB LOADING IS WHAT IS DONE THE NIGHT BEFORE AN EVENT. OP IS TALKING ABOUT PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT ENERGY GELS ARE. PURE FAST FRUCTOSE TO OVERCOME "THE WALL" AND PREVENT BOINKING OUT!

Energy gels are ~110 calories and you take them about every 4-5 miles (with 8-12 oz water ALWAYS).

You burn ~130 calories per mile at a 10 min/mile pace or 208 calories per mile at a 6 min/mile pace.

IN ADDITION, you PEAK your metabolism and keep it high all day long.

GUESS WHAT FAGGOT, IF HE DIDN'T TAKE THE SIMPLE FRUCTOSE ENERGY GELS, HE WOULDN'T LAST 10 MILES OUTDOORS AT ANY RESPECTABLE PACE.
>> Anonymous
>>296920

It's a pretty damn good idea actually, if you were completely dedicated to competing in a marathon, like "OMG I'm going to run the Boston Marathon before I die", this would be something to consider.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>296920
Don't listen to him. He's a fucking idiot faggot.

>"micro loading", "muscles from getting catabolized",

Seriously, this guy may know his methods of HIIT and whatnot, be he totally doesn't know shit about endurance events and spreads the common misconceptions associated with endurance events.
>> Anonymous
>>296943

HAHA OH WOW. You completely missed the point of this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>296951
>>296943

Same butthurt crosscuntryfag. We're talking about fat loss, not endurance performance.
>> Anonymous
>>296948
Well, I've done a marathon before, except when I was stupid and did it on an empty stomach except for those jelly beans some Indian dude was giving out from a huge bowl on mile 7...

But pretty much my dilemma comes in where I'm considering how to use my endurance to burn fat the quickest way possible. But I guess endurance doesn't work for fat loss...
>> Anonymous
>>296955
>>296957
do the math and read about endurance running, samebutthurt fag.

Huge calorie defect, and distance running done properly with gels maintains musculature. Look that shit up, son.
>> Anonymous
>>296963
Learn2nutrition. Caloric deficits do not make fatloss. Huge caloric deficits will invoke starvation mode. I know this--I'm OP, and before I knew shit about nutrition, I ran marathons for the caloric deficit and never dropped any 1 lb of fat without dropping another 2 lb of muscle to go along with it. Got me smaller, but never healthier or stronger. A small deficit has gotten me out of skinnyfat land very quickly without the long runs factored in.
>> Anonymous
>>296959

Quickest, most efficient way hands down to burn fat is HIIT. Endurance events will burn fat, don't get me wrong, but it comes at the risk of losing some muscle. Your idea doesn't seem to be the most efficient method for fat loss, but if you're dead set on continuing endurance training, then that's going to be the best way to prevent muscle catabolism and induce some fat loss.
>> Anonymous
>>296972
Thanks. I think I'll stick with HIIT, which is what I've been doing. Sucks to be impatient, especially when I'm deadlifting heavy as shit which results in a more muscular/large trunk on me to make the fatloss around my midsection virtually unseeable.

Thanks /fit/