Even if breasts are very dense (which I don't doubt), I'm pretty sure you'll lose some (maybe not much then) often its on the side and top that there's more fat that's why the band size gets affected too, though its more probable that you'll lose band size too, so in fact you'd wind up still a C but at a smaller band.

Quote from: Keira on January 12, 2008, 02:11:08 AM

Even if breasts are very dense (which I don't doubt), I'm pretty sure you'll lose some (maybe not much then) often its on the side and top that there's more fat that's why the band size gets affected too, though its more probable that you'll lose band size too, so in fact you'd wind up still a C but at a smaller band.

When my weight was where it belonged my band size was 44, cup was C.  There is fat visible inside the curve of my cleavage so I can see where I will have a loss.

I still have my old brassieres.  Now all I need is the figure that I once had.  It is attainable.

Thanks again, Keira. 

I saw my GP yesterday and I asked for Injectable hormones. She flatly refused and said that she cannot consider anything like that until my blood pressure goes down. But all my family on my mothers side suffer from blood pressure both male and female members. My GP blames my high blood pressure on HRT but I have always had high blood pressure long before HRT.

How can I ever access Injectable hormones?

Quote from: Berliegh on January 12, 2008, 05:53:58 AM
I saw my GP yesterday and I asked for Injectable hormones. She flatly refused and said that she cannot consider anything like that until my blood pressure goes down. But all my family on my mothers side suffer from blood pressure both male and female members. My GP blames my high blood pressure on HRT but I have always had high blood pressure long before HRT.

How can I ever access Injectable hormones?

move to US or a country where they supply it. Get therapy so you can legally obtain HRT in that country- tell the endo about your "story" and how other meds DON'T work a bit- so you think injections should be tested- if you say that you've been on every estro form except injection they most likely will let you try it.

Quote from: Wing Walker on January 12, 2008, 12:57:21 AM
Hello, Keira,

Thank you for mentioning the fat behind the stomach muscles. 

I heard of this only once before in a talk about gender-based medicine delivered by Dr. Pamela Peake, a physician and nutritionist who was at the time associated with the University of Maryland, College Park Campus.  I never gave it any thought until I read your posting  and looked at myself.

In my case I have a goodly amount of padding on me.  My breasts are C-cup.  I have fat on my tummy, thighs, hips, and bum.  I also have way too much that I gather is behind my tummy.  Did I read correctly that this fat will eventually go from behind my stomach to other places on my body provided I exercise sufficiently?

I've been using the weather as an excuse for not walking but I believe that it's time that Cindy and I went to a large, local shopping mall and walk briskly for a half-hour and work our way up to an hour.  When the weather gets better we will be walking up the hills in the neighborhood.

I am anxious to see the results.  I don't want to lose from anyplace besides the area from my sternum to my pubic bone.

Thank you for the info and the help.  BTW, can you point me towards a diagram of the abdominal cavity of the female that shows the visceral fat?  It would explain a lot for me.

Sincerely,

Wing Walker

Wing Walker, brief exercise is enough to keep fat off.  When it's already on there, however, the hardest place to lose it is the stomach.  A brisk walk might do it, dependong on how well your body responds to exercise.  I've never been a fan of walking or running for cardio due to the impact it places on the knees.  Biking, or purchasing a stationary eliptical bike(http://www.overstock.com/Sports-Toys/Health-Trainer-440-Recumbent-Exercise-Bike/2767753/product.html), would probably be the best option of an excellent method to stay in shape.  I work with senior and middle aged clients every week.  Walking contributes to or aggravates hip disorders, and running is simply out of the question when the heartrate can be gotten up without the wear and tear on the knees and spine.
What I would suggest is what I'd suggest for anyone, a little bit of resistance training along with consistent cardio.  Whether it's squats and crunches, 3 times a week with cardio every day or you get a full out gym membership, it's your place to decide and not mine.

Everyone's body works differently, but quite frankly if everyone could lose weight by just going for a walk then I'd be out of a job and so would millions of other fitness experts across the country.  There is no such thing as 6 minute abs or 4 minutes a day cardio, I'm sorry:-(

If you'd like some in detail articles on how you can lose weight, I'd suggest you look over these few:
A guide to proper nutrition:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3720211
A thread discussing artificial sweeteners.  I find it highly biased, but if you scroll through a few pages then you'll find other people agreeing with me, but still excellent literature from both sides.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=291569
And all you need to know about cardio:
http://www.bodytrends.com/articles/cardio/everythingaerobic.htm

EXCELLENT answer for losing weight:
"Firstly, a combination of a good weightlifting schedule and cardio is better than just cardio alone. I found that out when I took a college women's strength class in Fall 2002 at age 50 and being 245lbs back then for over 30 years of marriage and raising my own children. After a year of classes, I dropped several inches and a few pant sizes. Worked out at home for the next year and a half and dropped abit more. Went from wearing size 48 for 18 years to wearing size 36/16.

Now, at 53, I am 170lbs at 5'6"/largeboned. Was about this weight when I married m husband 33 years ago. I was never skinny as a kid and my exercise as a teen in college was riding a 10sp all over San Diego.

There are many excellent threads in these board to help you. But one especially with great advice for the beginner about diet and exercise is "BuffedWildCat's Advice to Newbies". You cant go far wrong with this one.

As for diet. It is not necessary to go to an Atkins or South Beach if you have been eating properly in the first place. Basically, it is upping the protein intake, lower any refined carbs/sugars and eat in moderation. Have 5-6 small meals a day instead of three big ones to help keep the metabolism up. When I started out, I barely ate as it was and only when I was hungry. Then ate the wrong things when I did. The combination put my body into "starvation mode". When I first started lifting, I was letting my stored fat burn as energy while lifting but you can only go so far with that. Later that first semester, I found this site and learned ALOT about the Female Myths of dieting and lifting. I was determined to make both lifting and proper diet a lifestyle to stay with. Why I gave myself four full semesters of classes while relearning to eat. This way it "stuck" for good and it had.

For myself, I was just plain sick and tired being...."sick and tired". Low energy, inflexible, back and shoulders hurting from some osteo and out of sorts in general. At 50, I looked around at all the older hobbling, injury ridden, overweight snowbirds in my local town ...and quite afew women my age.....to realize I was headed the same direction. Uh uh....no way!

My classes were small and made up of women older and abit younger than me. Each semester had it's share of newbies and carryovers like myself. My first semester instructor was a local wrestling coach and bodybuilder (his wife was one too) who had a simple but effective program used for years. At the beginning of the second, a new female instructor took over with a slightly different program. The gym had a combination of freeweights and Universal machines.

Both instructors started everyone out with low weights (5 pounds)...depending on the person's general strength. In my first class, a couple did use 3 pound weights as they were older than I was and had shoulder problems. But some were younger and had office jobs.

However, as I found out....those lower weights were too light for me and, eventually, worked out with 10 pounds for curls/flies and 20 pounds for the bentover DBL rows. Living a rural lifestyle and raising animals, I was stronger than the others who led more sedantary lives. So depending on how active your mother is normally, she just maybe stronger than first thought too.

We started out with 3-4 sets of 10 to 12 reps using a combination of freeweights (dumbbells) and Universal machines. Did this as an evening class, three days a week on a split schedule for a hour to 90 minutes. After the first semester, I just continued where I left off and was soon lifting more than any one else. I found I liked lifting and the new feeling of self confidence and self esteem it gave. Just took the class premise and ran with it.

"Form" is most important to prevent any possible injury and to get the most out of the workout. Be sure she stretches before starting. Especially since she has never lifted before and may not have the flexibility. Before lifting, I was finding it harder to get out my car. Pushing myself out of a chair or getting up off the ground after playing with the dogs. I had always been fairly strong anyway, but was losing flexibility over the years. Bummer.


But "Losing fat" is only one reason for doing this as there are others to consider too. During the succeeding semesters, there were some women taking this for after gastric bypass surgery therapy to help them drop the fat and gain more strength. A drastic step that even I had thought about at one time years before when I was over 260 for a while. They told me if I could drop the fat and improve my health this way.....it was best. They took this step after seriously trying all other avenues but could not get the weight down.

I knew one 72 year old woman who had serious osteoarthritis in her shoulders and knees who took the class to help with joint bloodflow and improve her flexibility. Lifting moderatley heavy weights is a good way to build bone mass before and after menopause to keep osteoporosis at bay. There was another who was Type 2 diabetic taking this to help control it by dropping the weight/improve health. So there are many factors why combining both lifting and cardio is the best way to go.


You have to give yourself time and patience when starting out. However long it has been being overweight, it will take awhile to get it off. Give yourself at least four months to really see the changes. Put away the scale for the first few weeks, as this can be misleading, confusing and disheartening at first. Better that you use your wardrobe as an indicator of progress. For various reasons, the scale might not show much change at first. But finding your pants are getting looser as the inches go is far more encouraging. This as your body goes through some subtle adjustments while getting used to the routine. Also while exercising diet, the body is shifting the fat too.

There is no such thing as "spot reducing" and we all have our trouble spots. With me, I carry my fat in my back, shoulders, stomach and do not have large thighs/hips. Just not built that way. Where you deposited the fat first, this will be the last to go. Why you may see more changes in your face and arms first. It depends.

After the first few weeks, you will begin seeing and feeling the difference. After the first two months, depending on how often and the intensity, you will REALLY see the difference and feel more energized. It depends as each person is different. Even if you can only set aside 45 minutes three days a week, it will all add up. Two days or even one day. All of this will help build stronger bones (hold back any osteo) and strengthen muscles. I do have some lower back arthritis and my back muscles were not the best. I could not do reverse ab crunches because of this. However by working the other exercises, my lower back muscles were strengthened considerably.

Like I said, you will have to be patient and just keep at it. So easy to want immediate results, just take your time and be consistant."

Kalt, there has been recent studies on visceral fat and it does respond well to moderate exercise 30 minute a day walk (I'm not talking leisurely walk, get you heart at 120 at least) and healthy eating. Those fats are next to the liver and are easier to convert than those around the body, so they'll be used if intensity goes high enough that normally the body would switch away from using fats, but in this case, since they are easily accessible, it continues using them instead of switching to mainly carbs. Of course, not eating more than before is important. Most people walk at much lower rythm than this rendering the exercise a bit futile.

The reason this fat responds best to moderate exercise is because higher intensity of resistance, endurance, weight training demands too much energy too quickly for fats to be used carbs are used in preference. IF you continue at a high intensity past a certain point, you'll end up eating up muscles for fuel. Another good reason for short intense training sessions twice a day rather than long ones if you want to build muscles strength and overall capacity. If you have too low intensity it will take it from carbs, never expend of them to go for the fats, the remaining carbs or then stored as fats and you keep on piling the pound around the middle.

Quote from: Keira on January 12, 2008, 12:38:05 PM

Kalt, there has been recent studies on visceral fat and it does respond well to moderate exercise 30 minute a day walk (I'm not talking leisurely walk, get you heart at 120 at least) and healthy eating. Not eating more than before. Please find them. Most people walk at much lower rythm than this rendering the exercise a bit futile.

The reason this fat responds best to moderate exercise is because higher intensity of resistance, endurance, weight training demands too much energy too quickly for fats to be used carbs are used in preference. If you have too low intensity it will take it from carbs, never expend of them to go for the fats, the remaining carbs or then stored as fats and you keep on piling the pound around the middle.

No offense Keira, but I've seen the studies and I call complete bull->-bleeped-<- on the whole thing.  Calories are calories, be it carbohydrates or fat.  Being a complete sissy about the whole thing and trying to target just fat burning isn't even going to yield half the results that proper training would.
This is the myth that just about every honest fitness professional has been battling for years now, along with things like, "upper/lower abs" and "spot reduction," and all.  Thousands of articles from doctors and educated trainers who've made a name for themselves in the field because they know what they're talking about from years of college education negate this, but all it takes is a few people who don't know what they're talking about to make it sound good and get people's wishful thinking up again.
But ANYTHING is better than nothing, and it helps blood flow, which in turn would help estrogen receptivity.

How can a study be a myth!! I call bull myself.
If you've got something against the studies methology,
find it and point me the faults. This is a blanket attack
coming from your own empirical observations, which
I don't agree on.

Besides, you surely haven't read it by the way you react to it.


BTW, I've trained at a national level (Canada) for close to 9 years
in High Jumping, so I trained twice or even 3 times a day for years,
from 1983 to 1991. I know what training is about.

Losing weight is a long term deal. Walking 30 minutes a day while
watching what you eat can make you lose 1 pound a week very easily.
At the end of the year, that' 50 pound. For most women, that takes
them close to their ideal weight. I really don't get the sissy thing
in there. Where no talking about going into the marine's here. For
most people, even this moderate exercise is way more than they're
doing now and will make a big difference in their lives.

While I agree weight training is good since it builds metabolism.
I'm talking the minimum people can do to keep in shape. Most people
don't have the time or inclination to do so.

First off Keira, if you're going to be the one citing studies, then you'd damned well better be the one providing them instead of shirking off the load.  When you make a claim, the burden of proof lays with you, and shifting it is a fallacy.

You don't think I'm not qualified?  I've set a national record for my age and bodyweight on squat.  At 3.3% bodyfat, when my usual is 10-12%, I'm pretty sure I know how to lose weight for myself.  Not only that, I'm certified and get paid to get other people to lose weight.  I acknowledge that you've done a lot of advanced training too, but the fitness industry is a big place and there's plenty of room for bs to go around until someone with an education stops it.

"Myths Under The Microscope: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone & Fasted Cardio

By Alan Aragon


INTRODUCTION

Why do natural bodybuilding contests for the most part look like swim meets minus the pool?

The obvious answer is the relative absence of anabolic and androgenic drugs that enable "enhanced" athletes to hold on to considerably more muscle under prolonged metabolic stress than natural pre-contest trainees. The other part of the answer is that naturals as a group tend to undermine their efforts by copying the training and nutritional practices of their pharmacologically advantaged brethren.

I wrote this review in the hopes of slowly but surely prying open some minds (including my own) by bringing the facts to light. Sometimes concepts can't be sufficiently conveyed through cyber debates, where emotionally-driven flexing and posturing for the public take priority over honest, objective, and thorough examination of the evidence. I'll take a look at the hard data, as well as the theoretical extrapolations involved with this highly misunderstood topic.

Warning: This is gonna be lengthy, so save this reading for when you can really sit down and buckle up. I highly encourage you to tread slowly and carefully through the material. For you skimmers out there, I provided summaries of the key research points.


THE "FAT BURNING ZONE" ON TRIAL

Substrate Utilization 101: Origin of the myth

Dietary variables aside, the body's proportional use of fat for fuel during exercise is dependent upon training intensity. The lower the intensity, the greater the proportion of stored fat is used for fuel. The higher the intensity, the greater proportional use of glycogen and/or the phosphagen system. But this is where the misunderstanding begins. Common sense should make it obvious that although I'm burning a greater proportion of stored fat typing this sentence, Getting up and sprinting would have a greater impact on fat reduction despite its lesser proportional use of fat to power the increased intensity. Alas, sufficient investigation of the intensity threshold of maximal net fat oxidation has been done. In what's perhaps the best designed trial of its kind, Achten & Jeukendrup found peak fat oxidation to occur during exercise at 63% VO2 max. This peak level got progressively less beyond that point, and was minimal at 82% VO2 max, near the lactate threshold of 87% [1].

Misunderstanding is perpetuated in fitness circles

It has been widely misconstrued that a greater net amount of fat is burned through lower to moderate intensity work, regardless of study duration and endpoints assessed. In addition the confusion of net fat oxidation with proportional fat oxidation, the postexercise period is critically overlooked. No distinction is ever made between during-exercise fat oxidation, recovery period fat oxidation, total fat oxidation by the end of a 24-hr period, and most importantly, a longer term of several weeks.. Thus, the superiority of lower intensity cardio continues to be touted over the more rigorous stuff that takes half the time to do. Fortunately, we have enough research data to gain a clear understanding. Let's dig in.


DISSECTING THE RESEARCH

Mixed study protocols + mixed results = plenty of mixed-up bodybuilders

As with all research involving applied physiology, the highly mixed set of results is due to a wide variation of study designs in terms subject profile, dietary manipulation, energetic balance, and actual intensities used. Nevertheless, the body of exercise-induced fat oxidation research can be easily deciphered by stratifying it into 3 subgroups: Acute effect (during exercise & immediately after), 24-hr effect, & chronic effect (results over several weeks).

Acute effects spawn ideas for further research

In addition to measuring fat oxidation during exercise, most acute effect trials look at fat oxidation at the 3 to 6 hr mark postexercise [2]. Fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments. For example, Phelain's team compared fat oxidation in at 3hrs postexercise of 75% VO2 max versus the same kcals burned at 50% [3]. Fat oxidation was insignificantly higher during exercise for the 50% group, but was significantly higher for the 75% group 3 hours postexercise. Lee's team compared, in college males, the thermogenic and lipolytic effects of exercise pre-fueled with milk + glucose on high versus low-intensity training [4]. Predictably, pre-exercise intake of the milk/glucose solution increased excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC, aka residual thermogenesis) significantly more than the fasted control group in both cases. The high-intensity treatment had more fat oxidation during the recovery period than the low intensity treatment. This implicates pre-fueled high-intensity training's potential role in optimizing fat reduction while simultaneously setting the stage for quicker recovery.

24-hr effects come closer to reality

You can call it Murphy's Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson's research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise [5]. In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.

Saris & Schrauwen conducted a similar study on obese males using a high-intensity interval protocol versus a low-intensity linear one [6]. There was no difference in fat oxidation between high & low intensity treatments at 24 hrs. In addition, the high-intensity group actually maintained a lower respiratory quotient in postexercise. This means that their fat oxidation was higher than the low-intensity group the rest of the day following the training bout, thus the evening out the end results at 24 hrs.

Chronic effects come even closer

Long-term/Chronic effect studies are the true tests of whatever hints and clues we might get from acute studies. The results of trials carried out over several weeks have obvious validity advantages over shorter ones. They also afford the opportunity to measure changes in body composition, versus mere substrate use proximal to exercise. The common thread running through these trials is that when caloric expenditure during exercise is matched, negligible fat loss differences are seen. The fact relevant to bodybuilding is that high-intensity groups either gain or maintain LBM, whereas the low-intensity groups tend to lose lean mass, hence the high intensity groups experience less net losses in weight [7-9].

The body of research strongly favors high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for both fat loss and lean mass gain/maintenance, even across a broad range of study populations [9-12]. A memorable example of this is work by Tremblay's team, observing the effect of 20 weeks of HIIT versus endurance training (ET) on young adults [9]. When energy expenditure between groups was corrected, HIIT group showed a whopping 9 times the fat loss as the ET group. In the HIIT group, biopsies showed an increase of glycolytic enzymes, as well as an increase of 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) activity, a marker of fat oxidation. Researchers concluded that the metabolic adaptations in muscle in response to HIIT favor the process of fat oxidation. The mechanisms for these results are still under investigation, but they're centered around residual thermic and lipolytic effects mediated by enzymatic, morphologic, and beta-adrenergic adaptations in muscle. Linear/steady state comparisons of the 2 types tends to find no difference, except for better cardiovascular fitness gains in the high-intensity groups [13].

Summing up the research findings

• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat."

"FALSE HOPES FOR FASTED CARDIO

The bandwagon is lead by blind horses

Many trainees pigeonhole weight training as an activity exclusively for building muscle, and cardio exclusively for burning fat. On the contrary, weight training can yield very similar results to cardio of similar intensity when 24-hr energy expenditure and macronutrient oxidation is measured [14]. The obvious advantage of weight training is the higher potential for lean mass and strength gains. In the bodybuilding context, cardio should be viewed as merely an adjunctive training mode to further energy expenditure and cross-complement the adaptations specific to weight training. As far as cardio being absolutely necessary for cardiovascular health, well, that depends upon the overall volume and magnitude of your weight training - another topic for another time.

Chaos theory strikes again

On the surface, it seems logical to separate carbs from cardio if you want a maximal degree of fat oxidation to occur during training. But, there's the underlying mistake - focusing on stored fuel usage during training instead of focusing on optimally partitioning exogenous fuel for maximal lipolytic effect around the clock. Put another way, it's a better objective to coincide your carb intake with your day's thermic peaks, where insulin sensitivity & lean tissue reception to carbs is highest. For some reason, this logic is not easily accepted, nor understood. As we know, human physiology doesn't always cooperate with logic or popular opinion, so let's scrutinize the science behind the claims.


LET THE RESEARCH SPEAK

Carbohydrate ingestion during low-intensity exercise reduces fat oxidation

As far as 3 decades back, Ahlborg's team observed that carb ingestion during low-intensity exercise (25-45% VO2 max) reduced fat oxidation compared to fasted levels [15]. More recently, De Glisezinski's team observed similar results in trained men at 50% VO2 max [16]. Efforts to determine the mechanism behind this phenomenon have been made. Coyle's team observed that at 50% VO2 max, carbohydrate availability can directly regulate fat oxidation by coordinating hyperinsulinemia to inhibit long-chain fatty acid transport into mitochondria [17].

Carbohydrate's effect on fat oxidation during moderate-intensity exercise depends on conditioning level

Civitarese's team found glucose ingestion during exercise to blunt lipolysis via decreasing the gene expression involved in fat oxidation in untrained men [18]. Wallis' team saw suppressed fat oxidation in moderately trained men & women when glucose was ingested during exercise [19].

In contrast to the above trials on beginning and intermediate trainees, Coyle's team repeatedly showed that carb ingestion during moderate-intensity (65-75% VO2 max) does not reduce fat oxidation during the first 120 min of exercise in trained men [20,21]. Interestingly, the intensity margin proximal to where fat oxidation is highest was unaffected by carb ingestion, and remained so for the first 2 hours of exercise.

Horowitz' team examined the effect of a during-training solution of high-glycemic carbs on moderately trained men undergoing either low intensity exercise (25% VO2 max) or high-moderate intensity (68% VO2 max) [22]. Similar results to Coyle's work were seen. Subjects completed a 2-hr cycling bout, and ingested the carb solution at 30, 60, and 90 minutes in. In the low-intensity treatment, fat oxidation was not reduced below fasted-state control group's levels until 80-90 min of exercise. In the 68% group, no difference in fat oxidation was seen whether subjects were fasted or fed throughout the trial.

Further supporting the evidence in favor of fed cardio in trained men, Febbraio's team investigated the effects of carb ingestion pre & during training in easily one of the best-designed trials on this topic [23]. Subjects exercised for 2 hrs at an intensity level of 63% VO2 max, which is now known as the point of maximal fat oxidation during exercise [1]. Result? Pre & during-training carbs increased performance - and there was no difference in total fat oxidation between the fasted and fed subjects. Despite the elevated insulin levels in the carb-fueled groups, there was no difference in fat availability or fat utilization.

Summing up the research findings

• At low intensities (25-50% VO2 max), carbs during exercise reduce fat oxidation compared to fasted trainees.
• At moderate intensities (63-68% VO2 max) carbs during exercise may reduce fat oxidation in untrained subjects, but do not reduce fat oxidation in trained subjects for at least the first 80-120 minutes of exercise.
• Carbohydrate during exercise spares liver glycogen, which is among the most critical factors for anticatabolism during hypocaloric & other conditions of metabolic stress. This protective hepatic effect is absent in fasted cardio.
• At the established intensity level of peak fat oxidation (~63% VO2 max), carbohydrate increases performance without any suppression of fat oxidation in trained subjects."

"REFERENCES

1. Achten J, Jeukendrup AE. Relation between plasma lactate concentration and fat oxidation rates over a wide range of exercise intensities. Int J Sports Med. 2004 Jan;25(1):32-7.
2. Thompson DL, et al. Substrate use during and following moderate- and low-intensity exercise: implications for weight control. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998 Jun;78(1):43-9.
3. Phelain JF, et al. Postexercise energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in young women resulting from exercise bouts of different intensity.J Am Coll Nutr. 1997 Apr;16(2):140-6.
4. Lee YS. Et al. The effects of various intensities and durations of exercise with and without glucose in milk ingestion on postexercise oxygen consumption. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999 Dec;39(4):341-7.
5. Melanson EL, et al. Effect of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;92(3):1045-52.
6. Saris WH, Schrauwen P. Substrate oxidation differences between high- and low-intensity exercise are compensated over 24 hours in obese men.
7. Grediagin A, et al. Exercise intensity does not effect body composition change in untrained, moderately overfat women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jun;95(6):661-5.
8. Mougios V, et al. Does the intensity of an exercise programme modulate body composition changes? Int J Sports Med. 2006 Mar;27(3):178-81.
9. Okura T, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on physical fitness and risk factors for coronary heart disease. Obes Res. 2003 Sep;11(9):1131-9.
10. Tremblay, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8.
11. Yoshioka M, et al. Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9.
12. Broeder CE, et al. The effects of either high-intensity resistance or endurance training on resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Apr;55(4):802-10.
13. Gutin B, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on cardiovascular fitness, total body composition, and visceral adiposity of obese adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 May;75(5):818-26.
14. Melanson EL, et al. Resistance and aerobic exercise have similar effects on 24-h nutrient oxidation.. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Nov;34(11):1793-800.
15. Ahlborg, G., and P. Felig. Influence of glucose ingestion on fuel-hormone response during prolonged exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1976;41:683-688.
16. De Glisezinski I, et al. Effect of carbohydrate ingestion on adipose tissue lipolysis during long-lasting exercise in trained men. J Appl Physiol. 1998 May;84(5):1627-32.
17. Coyle EF, et al. Fatty acid oxidation is directly regulated by carbohydrate metabolism during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1997 Aug;273(2 Pt 1):E268-75.
18. Civitarese AE, et al. Glucose ingestion during exercise blunts exercise-induced gene expression of skeletal muscle fat oxidative genes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Dec;289(6):E1023-9.
19. Wallis GA, et al. Metabolic response to carbohydrate ingestion during exercise in males and females. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Apr;290(4):E708-15.
20. Coyle, et al. Muscle glycogen utilization during prolonged strenuous exercise when fed carbohydrate. J. Appl. Physiol. 1986;6:165-172.
21. Coyle, et al.. Carbohydrates during prolonged strenuous exercise can delay fatigue. J. Appl. Physiol. 59: 429-433, 1983.
22. Horowitz JF, et al. Substrate metabolism when subjects are fed carbohydrate during exercise. Am J Physiol. 1999 May;276(5 Pt 1):E828-35.
23. Febbraio MA, et al. Effects of carbohydrate ingestion before and during exercise on glucose kinetics and exercise performance. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Dec;89(6):2220-6."

Allan Aragon

Very cool. Except the study I mentioned was more recent and its not mentioned in the sources
I think late 2006 or early 2007.
I will try to find it. Not this weekend.
I'm not talking about fats in general BTW. ONLY Visceral fats which have a metabolic effect.
They are by far the worse for health and their full bad effect has only started to be
discovered and investigated in the last few years.
These fats are even worse than believed at first.
Haven't time to read fully the doc up there, but there doesn't seem to be a differentiation
in the fats.
If we're talking at cross purpose, of course we won't agree.

And to add to the post above: focusing on burning total calories instead of carbs are what bodybuilders and powerlifters do to ensure the least amount of muscle is lost.  This goal is very similiar for any transwoman, not wanting to lose her curves and humps.  The effect of long term moderate intensity cardio will have greater impact on the recuction of breast size than higher intensity interval training and weight lifting to burn calories.  This is why biker chicks have flat chests, but female figure competitors are pretty busty, and natural too(some of them).

Posted on: January 12, 2008, 02:07:42 PM

---

I'm sorry if it seems like I've been arguing with you Keira.  Please let me see that stuff on visceral fat or whatever, I'm pretty interested in it.
And this study, and the studies it's quoting, were all post 05.
And since we're on the topic and you ARE very knowledgable, what's probably the best estrogen intake method for a highly active individual?  My gut instinct says patches.  I asked my doc about it and he didn't really have an answer.

Best way to not burn muscles is not to do only high intesity cardio.
Most women to to much
high intensity cardio, deplete their carbs, fat metabolism can't keep up with and
they end up eating their muscles!! Low carb diets will also eat up muscles if you
exercise at any intensity, or in the morning, since again fats won't be able to
be accessed. So, no wonder many women who train so much get so little out of it.

That's why I'm not espousing more than 30 minutes at moderate intensity, because
then there would be a chance that carbs would be expended and muscles used
for fuel.

BTW, the body will eat up the muscles it uses less first on low protein diet;
some people with liver problems (even failing) have problems processing proteins and must
use those diets.  Because of a study showing this, they now have load bearing exercise
on specific muscles, more than before. I think its a survival
mechanism, the body shrinks its metabolism to suit its nutrition and thus needs
to decrease the muscles it uses least first (most often its the upper body). In
Nazi camps, the people would not be able to walk if they're lower body muscle mass
was as bad as their upper body muscle mass (those photos or film are hard to look at).

Quote from: Renate on January 12, 2008, 01:36:42 PM
Hi Keira & Kalt:

You two are way over our heads and out of our leagues.
(Shouldn't this be another topic anyway?)

So, a simple question:  For MTF's who could care less about upper body strength,
but want to reduce the waistline to something more female, in one sentence, what
is the advice that you two can agree on?

Renate

I'll say what I'll always say, and that is a decent cardio routine(as Keira mentioned), or something more advanced as people become more advanced(as I mentioned), along with weightlifting for the legs(as I've always advocated), such as BW squats, lunges, and holding dumbells as one progesses.
Progession is a very real thing in both cardio and exercise, meaning that someone can't get the same results out of the same setting on a treadmill, same pace on a run, or same weights on a lift forever.  The  body adapts, the heart gets stronger and so do the muscles.  Gradually increasing the resistance of whatever you're doing is CRUCIAL for continued gains.

So pretty much what anyone could do is go for a walk a few times a week.  I think that everyone on this site would do well to do 10 bodyweight squats tonight, then 11 tomorrow night, and 12 the night after, increasing one each day.  Once 100 reps are reached, purchase two 10Lb dumbells and start over.

You don't have to lift weights and junk to be healthy, but it makes it a lot easier to achieve the goal, like catching a plane instead of walking 500 miles.

Keira is going on about visceral belly fat, which probably isn't a big deal for anyone who lives a healthy, moderately active lifestyle to start with, right Keira?

QuoteThousands of articles from doctors and educated trainers who've made a name for themselves in the field because they know what they're talking about from years of college education negate this, but all it takes is a few people who don't know what they're talking about to make it sound good and get people's wishful thinking up again.

The FDA, and drug companies, as well as marketing, and the communication industry have all got their hands into what information is promoted. The truth is hard to find and even harder to verify.

Hi Berliegh hon
From what I have been reading, my impression of the folks that handle HRT over there in UK way are very incredibly stupid if you ask me. I wouldn't live there if I had all the money in the world. I would consider moving to planet Mars first.

As for Keira, what she writes I have no difficulty understanding and it makes sense, common sense.

As for Kult I have no Idea where his head is at, trying to understand what he writes you would need a doctorate's degree in medicine to understand it, and I consider myself a fairly smart individual.

Yawll have a wonderful day

Cindy

At the steady state say 1-2 year in a healthy eating and exercising program,
I'd agree Kalt. But most don't start with this steady state. But, any exercise
at a decent clip is better than no exercise and it will get rid of this visceral fat;
of course, exercising more, will also work :-).
To get rid of the other fats may take more efforts and a higher metabolism built
through weight training.

In my opinion, low carb and low protein
diets used long terms are just crazy if you have an active lifestyle (and in general). Eating
a healthy and balanced is the much better than any crazy restriction diet.

Although from a TS former linebacker's point of view (not my point of view HAHA),
the low protein, low carb diet with high intensity
cardio for a substantial amount of time coupled with weight training on lower body muscles,
will make you shed upper body muscles
like there is no tomorrow (and less on the lower body). But, that's just a temp option
if you don't want your metabolism to be in the dumps so you gain weight just thinking
of donuts.


 

On diet, studies have found that cutting calories had very little to do with loss of muscle.  However, when putting students in a leg cast for 3 weeks, pounds were lost.  This supports that inactivity is what loses muscle mass, not calories.  Calories are just needed to put it on!  Eat healthy and eat a lot, you guys worry so much that your brains gotta need some serious energy!

http://nutritionhelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/losing-muscle-mass.html

Something I've noticed among natal females on birth control that might have some significance: I have personally observed that between athletic and healthy females on BC and druggy smoker females on BC, it seems as if it's the druggy smoker ones that end up pregnant more.  Could activity level be linked to hormonal sensetivity?

Cindy, I really don't appreciate the useless comments and the personal putdowns.  If you don't have anything to say that contributes to the topic then perhaps people could benefit from your advice in other threads.

Low calories with a balanced diet, I agree Kalt. But most time, they cut almost all carbs, proteins
or whatever's in fashion!!!
Hopefully, you don't have to do any thing remotely intense (like running accross the street (sic))
or think too much when you do
that because you'll eat your muscles in the first case and have very poor cognitive abilities in
the second case.

Cutting proteins is plain dumb!! no matter how you look at it, unless to lose muscles or
for medical reasons (liver failure). IF you don't like red meat, switch to vegetable proteins
or fish (I adore salmon and eat a lot of it).

I'm looking for studies relating activity to estrogen sensitivity or lackthereof.

If you mean in general in the body, I don't think they exist. If your thinking
of breast tissues, they exist, but are very contreversial since
even though there are hundreds, none seemingly agree.
There are studies on particular effects of estrogens in particular cases,
say on fat distribution, but
mostly we have to extrapolate this to our case since the
study patients and their environment (which for the study must be controled)
and us rarely match
exactly match. That's why studies reported in the media always turn
out to be wrong; they somehow omit the caveat.