EPOC questions

[BSCSCS]

Wanted to know what you trainers think.

Everybody wants to know the best, easiest, fastest way to burn fat. Right now and here in the recent past, EPOC has been getting a LOT of play, and has HIIT being all the rage. We all know about the ongoing argument between HIIT/EPOC and anaerobic threshold (fat burning zone) training.

Questions: Why is it that HIIT/EPOC seems to be the overwhelming favorite right now? And what is your personal opinion?

My personal opinion is that while HIIT in principal is supposed to take you somewhere between 70-85% VO2Max, MOST trainers have their clients above these levels for far too long. The argument is that even though they are very close to their AT (very small percentage of kcal using fat), they will continue to experience an "afterburn" which will continue to burn kcals from fat for up to 36 hours!

While I don't doubt that EPOC is real, I have serious doubts that it can last much more than 1 hour, much less 36. There have been studies showing that EPOC duration is decreased in trained individuals vs. untrained which makes sense. Think about it, how long does it take your bodies to return to homeostasis? 36 hours???

In my experience, this is a problem in our industry. The misconception that one has to murder themselves to lose weight. There is a reason, and it isn't only their diet, that a lot of people don't see results from HIIT bootcamps. And it's because they are spending too much time too close to or above their AT to burn any kcals from fat. And after they are done burning carbs, they replace them with a 250 kcal gatorade or fruit smoothie. Carbs need to be replaced, fat, for the most part doesn't until you start getting super low.

I am by no means an expert on EPOC, but it is a subject that I am very interested in. Please feel free to point out any false assumptions that I may have made about EPOC, AT or HIIT.

THX

[trance__dreamer]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

And it's because they are spending too much time too close to or above their AT to burn any kcals from fat. And after they are done burning carbs, they replace them with a 250 kcal gatorade or fruit smoothie. Carbs need to be replaced, fat, for the most part doesn't until you start getting super low.

think of it in terms of calories & not fat/carbs. our bodies are in a constant state of homeostasis/balance. the imbalance is what we should be concerned about; not this fat vs. carbs bullshit.

hmm...anyone else wanna chime in on this?

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by trance__dreamer

think of it in terms of calories & not fat/carbs. our bodies are in a constant state of homeostasis/balance. the imbalance is what we should be concerned about; not this fat vs. carbs bullshit.

hmm...anyone else wanna chime in on this?

My point is that when you burn 250 kcals of carbs, you will replace those calories with carbs because we NEED those carbs for the most part. If you burned 250 kcals of fat, you don't NEED to replace them. And when trying to lose fat you better start concentrating on this "fat vs. carbs bullshi+".

[mc-]

it may be a bit behind the curve to suggest EPOC is popular right now in fitness training curriculums.

you may want to take a look at Lyle McDonalds multi-part lit review of the concept.

The benefit from epoc is tiny.

Diet rules, that's all.

200 cals equals 2 pieces of bread or 20 mins of HIIT

just food for thought.

as for protocols tho, out of australia in 2007, fabulous results with 20 mins of 8sec on hard 12 light
for fat mobilization and use, 5 days a week 8 weeks i think. know the protocol just not how long the study was run

mc

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by mc-

it may be a bit behind the curve to suggest EPOC is popular right now in fitness training curriculums.

you may want to take a look at Lyle McDonalds multi-part lit review of the concept.

The benefit from epoc is tiny.

Diet rules, that's all.

200 cals equals 2 pieces of bread or 20 mins of HIIT

just food for thought.

as for protocols tho, out of australia in 2007, fabulous results with 20 mins of 8sec on hard 12 light
for fat mobilization and use, 5 days a week 8 weeks i think. know the protocol just not how long the study was run

mc

Thanks for your input and link. Down where I am it is not behind the curve, but I agree that it should be. When I do any kind of search on "fat burning" or best ways to burn fat, HIIT comes up a LOT, citing it's EPOC effect as a big reason.

[BSCSCS]

as for protocols tho, out of australia in 2007, fabulous results with 20 mins of 8sec on hard 12 light
for fat mobilization and use, 5 days a week 8 weeks i think. know the protocol just not how long the study was run

mc[/QUOTE]

I have always wondered about that study with the 8sec hard, 12 sec light. First, how the hell do you go from hard to light or vice versa in such a small amount of time? I know on a treadmill the transition takes at least 5 seconds. On a bike you would think that it would at least take 3 seconds to change. So wouldn't that 8sec hard 12sec light be hard to achieve? Maybe they have a machine/device that I am not aware of?

Anyway MC-, I just noticed your PhD in your sig. Maybe you can help me with my question, or rather my assumption. Is it true, like I said, that we NEED to replace our carbs and not our fats? To me it makes sense, but I have no evidence to back myself up, just an assumption. Thanks for your input.

[mc-]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

as for protocols tho, out of australia in 2007, fabulous results with 20 mins of 8sec on hard 12 light
for fat mobilization and use, 5 days a week 8 weeks i think. know the protocol just not how long the study was run

mc

I have always wondered about that study with the 8sec hard, 12 sec light. First, how the hell do you go from hard to light or vice versa in such a small amount of time? I know on a treadmill the transition takes at least 5 seconds. On a bike you would think that it would at least take 3 seconds to change. So wouldn't that 8sec hard 12sec light be hard to achieve? Maybe they have a machine/device that I am not aware of?

i do this protocol pretty regularly with a bike or kettlebell swings. try it.

Anyway MC-, I just noticed your PhD in your sig. Maybe you can help me with my question, or rather my assumption. Is it true, like I said, that we NEED to replace our carbs and not our fats? To me it makes sense, but I have no evidence to back myself up, just an assumption. Thanks for your input.

hmm well the body is a pretty adaptive mechanism, if you look at metabolic flexibility, so "need" is a pretty variable term.

Adipose tissue is different from fat we ingest. So for instance, we seem to do better with certain amounts of DHA's daily which are derived from omega 3's which are fats. likewise ingesting fats can help metabolize fat for energy.

the value of carbs can be replicated in much detail from fat. Gluconeogenisis takes awhile longer for regular conversion of source into usable glucose, so folks on ketogenic or protein sparing diets are usually encouraged to do some form of starchy carbs pre a workout to ensure that fuel is available for energy of intense efforts. here's a wee overview of fat metabolism (link)

best
mc

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by mc-

i do this protocol pretty regularly with a bike or kettlebell swings. try it.



hmm well the body is a pretty adaptive mechanism, if you look at metabolic flexibility, so "need" is a pretty variable term.

Adipose tissue is different from fat we ingest. So for instance, we seem to do better with certain amounts of DHA's daily which are derived from omega 3's which are fats. likewise ingesting fats can help metabolize fat for energy.

the value of carbs can be replicated in much detail from fat. Gluconeogenisis takes awhile longer for regular conversion of source into usable glucose, so folks on ketogenic or protein sparing diets are usually encouraged to do some form of starchy carbs pre a workout to ensure that fuel is available for energy of intense efforts. here's a wee overview of fat metabolism (link)

best
mc

Is it proven that ingesting fats can help metabolize fats for energy?

My main question is that of needing to replace what is lost, or used during exercise. Hopefully the fats we ingest after exercise are not stored as adipose tissue. So while we may need to ingest fats throughout the day, they are not necessarily ingested to replace lost adipose tissue, correct? But, the carbs that we loose during exercise DO need to be replaced, right? Or is gluconeogenisis expected to replace a lot of the lost carbs?

Thanks for your input.

[mc-]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

Is it proven that ingesting fats can help metabolize fats for energy?

unequivovably. look at the research on obesity and fish oil, or cla.

My main question is that of needing to replace what is lost, or used during exercise. Hopefully the fats we ingest after exercise are not stored as adipose tissue. So while we may need to ingest fats throughout the day, they are not necessarily ingested to replace lost adipose tissue, correct? But, the carbs that we loose during exercise DO need to be replaced, right? Or is gluconeogenisis expected to replace a lot of the lost carbs?

Thanks for your input.

what did you make of the fat metabolism post? it seems a lot of your questions are covered there?

mc

[nickmanzoni]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

Is it proven that ingesting fats can help metabolize fats for energy?

My main question is that of needing to replace what is lost, or used during exercise. Hopefully the fats we ingest after exercise are not stored as adipose tissue. So while we may need to ingest fats throughout the day, they are not necessarily ingested to replace lost adipose tissue, correct? But, the carbs that we loose during exercise DO need to be replaced, right? Or is gluconeogenisis expected to replace a lot of the lost carbs?

Thanks for your input.

I might be misunderstanding you:

It's not like after a workout your body goes:


ok I burned 250 kcal worth of carbs, 100 kcal worth of fat, and 50 kcal worth of protein: hence I need to take in 250 kcal of carbs, 50 kcal of proteins.

Instead it's more like "I need to replace the 400 kcals of energy I just burned to promote homeostatsis.... now It doesn't really matter where I get these cals from, it matters I get them soon or I'm going to turn to my muscles to get the deficit back to normal.


It is with the latter statement that people tend to lose focus of their goals when they skip their post workout meals. Obviously if one replaces the cals with the right number of carbs/proteins/fats at the right time. You get the benefit of metabolism that not only burns fat but rebuilds muscle.

It's that not alot of people ACTUALLY KNOW what and when to eat. And those who DO know sometimes WON'T apply this knowledge and hence aren't where they want to be physically.

You could lose weight if you only did 200kcals worth of exercise a day IF you ate the proper macro ratio. Might take a little longer, but the diet is the discipline, not the iron.

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by mc-

unequivovably. look at the research on obesity and fish oil, or cla.


what did you make of the fat metabolism post? it seems a lot of your questions are covered there?

mc

BUSTED! :0) Didn't read it yet. I have read some of it and it seems like it has what I'm looknig for. Thanks man. Repped.

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by nickmanzoni

I might be misunderstanding you:

It's not like after a workout your body goes:


ok I burned 250 kcal worth of carbs, 100 kcal worth of fat, and 50 kcal worth of protein: hence I need to take in 250 kcal of carbs, 50 kcal of proteins.

Instead it's more like "I need to replace the 400 kcals of energy I just burned to promote homeostatsis.... now It doesn't really matter where I get these cals from, it matters I get them soon or I'm going to turn to my muscles to get the deficit back to normal.


It is with the latter statement that people tend to lose focus of their goals when they skip their post workout meals. Obviously if one replaces the cals with the right number of carbs/proteins/fats at the right time. You get the benefit of metabolism that not only burns fat but rebuilds muscle.

It's that not alot of people ACTUALLY KNOW what and when to eat. And those who DO know sometimes WON'T apply this knowledge and hence aren't where they want to be physically.

You could lose weight if you only did 200kcals worth of exercise a day IF you ate the proper macro ratio. Might take a little longer, but the diet is the discipline, not the iron.

What I'm saying is that the carbs NEED to be replaced while lost adipose tissue does not. And I think that the body does crave certain nutrients when depleated and doesn't just want calories in any shape or form. But that's neither here nor there.

The reason for my question is that from my limited knowledge on the subject, I would think that HIIT training, WITHOUT moderate intensity cardio, is highly inefficient due to the fact that most of the calories burned will come from carbs, which will need to be replaced. As opposed to a normal strength training workout followed by moderate intensity cardio, which burnes a high percentage of kcals from fats that DO NOT need to be replaced.

I just want some ammo when people ask me why their HIIT bootcamp is not working for them.

[holdmyweights]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

I just want some ammo when people ask me why their HIIT bootcamp is not working for them.

ammo: "It's not the HIIT Bootcamp thats not working, it's you"

calories in < calories out = weightloss

the body doesnt want to lose weight

[trance__dreamer]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

Hopefully the fats we ingest after exercise are not stored as adipose tissue.

hmm...i'm still confused. o.p., i think i misunderstood your original question. my bad!

i thought you were jumping on the anti-carb bandwagon.

i still truly believe in the cals in vs. cals out thing, regardless of carbs, though. =P
& i think i read it as a question asking about the fat burning zone myth vs. the carb burning zone myth; i.e.: burning fats rather than burning cals from carbs. ex.: the fasted cardio crud. regardless of a person's heart rate; especially if they're conditioned/athletic like we are.
once agian, i still truly believe in the cals in vs. cals out thing, regardless of carbs. xD

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by holdmyweights

ammo: "It's not the HIIT Bootcamp thats not working, it's you"

calories in < calories out = weightloss

the body doesnt want to lose weight

But what if it partly IS the HIIT bootcamp? We are going to crave carbs after our workouts because we need them replaced. Most of the time all of us almost HAVE to ingest some carbs after a workout just to function normally. I don't think the same can be said about fats.

And I'm not necessarily talking about weight loss...but fat loss. Especially for, but not limited to those who want to lose that last % of BF to reach their goal.

[holdmyweights]

Originally Posted by BSCSCS

But what if it partly IS the HIIT bootcamp? We are going to crave carbs after our workouts because we need them replaced. Most of the time all of us almost HAVE to ingest some carbs after a workout just to function normally. I don't think the same can be said about fats.

And I'm not necessarily talking about weight loss...but fat loss. Especially for, but not limited to those who want to lose that last % of BF to reach their goal.

Eating after a workout is the easiest way to get energy back into the muscles and the body, carbs are digested and absorbed faster than fats thus why you feel more energized after eating carbs than fats. If you don't eat after a cardio session you'll feel tired untill your body finished replenishing your glycogen stores, but you'r body will still burn the same amount of calories. the science behind eating after a workout is to try and prevent your body from breaking down muscle to supply itself with energy.

HIIT is basically a faster workout than LISS, you expend the same amount of energy in 20-30 minutes instead of spending 1-1.5 hours casually walking.

As for those trying to get those last few percentage points of body fat to achieve their goal, the lower the body fat the harder your body hangs on to it. The body is designed for periods of starvation followed by periods of abundance, thus why we even store fat.

The main thing that is going to ensure you lose body fat is a consistent caloric deficit that just eats away at fat reserves, as long as you have that you will attain your goals. Doing cardio just makes you lose bodyfat without having to focus on the diet quite as much.

[BSCSCS]

Originally Posted by holdmyweights

Eating after a workout is the easiest way to get energy back into the muscles and the body, carbs are digested and absorbed faster than fats thus why you feel more energized after eating carbs than fats. If you don't eat after a cardio session you'll feel tired untill your body finished replenishing your glycogen stores, but you'r body will still burn the same amount of calories. the science behind eating after a workout is to try and prevent your body from breaking down muscle to supply itself with energy.

HIIT is basically a faster workout than LISS, you expend the same amount of energy in 20-30 minutes instead of spending 1-1.5 hours casually walking.

As for those trying to get those last few percentage points of body fat to achieve their goal, the lower the body fat the harder your body hangs on to it. The body is designed for periods of starvation followed by periods of abundance, thus why we even store fat.

The main thing that is going to ensure you lose body fat is a consistent caloric deficit that just eats away at fat reserves, as long as you have that you will attain your goals. Doing cardio just makes you lose bodyfat without having to focus on the diet quite as much.

Wouldn't it be better to do MIIT, ha, if that is even a term, and burn actual fat while you work out instead of almost all carbs???

The answer I usually get to this question is "No, because of the EPOC effect from HITT".

I know that everybody responds differently and certainly some people do see great results from HIIT. But from my personal experience, over the last year or so, I have seen dramatic changes in bodyfat from staying under my AT for most of my cardio.