Exercise and weight loss-don't understand

[rawfoodhealth]

I have read this article several times but I still do not understand it.

http://www.freeacnebook.com/56-63.htm#57

But when I work out, I burn more fat, don't I?

Yes, but the share of fat in your total energy expenditure decreases.

This is because your muscles mainly utilize glucose from the blood and glycogen from the muscles and the liver. You are utilizing lots of energy when you are physically very active, but relatively little fat, so body-fat is utilized less effectively.

But the total amount of utilized fat is greater, isn't it?

Yes, but that is not the issue. The amount of utilized sugars has increased far more. And you cannot lose weight by simply consuming too little energy; you have to replace all lost sugars.

Having worked out, much glucose has been lost and relatively little fat, which makes it harder not to replace body fat when replacing the required glucose (in the blood) and glycogen (in the muscles and liver)

The higher the share of utilized body-fat, the easier it is to replace lost blood-fatty acids and glucose without replacing lost body-fat.

One example is this: A person exercises and uses up 1500 calories from the glycogen stores and blood sugar and 200 calories from body fat. The person consumes a meal containing 1700 calories, consisting of carbs (1000 calories), protein (200 cal) and fats (500 calories). The person should weigh the same after and should have the same amount of fat in their body, right or wrong? I am assuming that 1500 calories goes straight to replacing the lost glycogen and blood glucose, and any excess, 200 cal, gets turned into fat. Maybe I am making an error in assuming that ingested protein and fats gets turned into glucose (and into glycogen) by the body.

I do not understand why the composition of the meal should make any difference in this scenario. If the person consumes a meal that consists of 1700 calories of glucose, no fats, no protein, 200 calories of the excess energy should get turned into fat, shouldn't it?

And if the person does slow walking and loses 500 calories from glycogen and glucose in blood and 500 calories from the fat stores, the person's fat stores will be the same if the person takes in 1000 calories after the exercise, regardless of whether the meal contains 100% carbohydrates or 50% carbs and 50% fats, or 20% carbs and 80% fats, shouldn't they?

Utlimately, to lose weight, you must have more calories out than calories in. So it doesn't make any difference about whether you burn a higher ratio of fat to glycogen or not, you should just try to take in less than what you lost. This is how I understand it.

And what if you consume only fruits after a workout?

In that way, you are replacing the lost glucose in the bloodstream and you are replacing the glycogen in the muscle and liver,but you are not taking in any fats or protein (except the little amount of protein found in fruit) and therefore you minimize the risk of replacing the body fat.

Shouldn't consuming only sugars (fruit) after a workout avoid the problem of overeating and also the problem of adding to the body fat (through the consumption of fats and protein)? Because you can't overeat on fruits, according to Wai?

I am not advocating that people do strenuous exercise at all; I just do not understand this part of the diet, and want to clear up where my understanding is wrong.

I know strenuous exercise increases appetite but I thought eating fruit only you would not overeat (take in more energy than your body requires).

Also, isn't total caloric expenditure and intake what counts?

This article http://scienceblogs.com/obesitypanacea/ ... ing_zo.php says that it doesn't really matter how about the ratios - of fat burning and glycogen utilization - but the total number of calories utilized, as excess calories from any source (from fat, carbs or protein) will be turned into fat.

I know that exercise advocates are trying to FORCE weight loss by working out so that a large number of calories is utilized and then eating less than is needed to replace the total amount of calories lost, thereby creating a calorie deficit, and that hardly ever works because the body will try its hardest to replace 100% of the calories utilized and perhaps even more (appetite is stimulated and you can easily eat more than your body needs ...), but I still do not understand what the difference is between extreme workouts and gentle walking, except in the difference in the degree that appetite is stimulated and even though that is mentioned in the Acne book, there are other reasons given which confuse me.

If the difference in appetite stimulation was given as the SOLE explanation, I wouldn't be confused, but there is amother reason given as well, the ratio of fat utilization to glycogen utilization during exercise, and this part I do not understand.

Once again, the only difference I can surmise between slow walking and strenuous workouts is that strenuous exercise stimulates the appetite, and not just to the point where you eat and replace the lost energy, but overshoots it, and you end up consuming more than your body needs ... and walking doesn't have that effect.

If that is true, the exercise pundits will counter that that overstimulation of appetite might occur, but that with increased muscle mass, the metabolic rate is increased, so you will be burning more energy than before doing just normal activities around the home or even just sitting and resting, so that the effect of the raised metabolic rate cancels out the effect of the stimulated appetite.

Once again, I am not advocating strenuous exercise to lose weight, but I just want to understand the explanation given in the Wai Diet because it's not clear to me, even after reading it many times.

[Oscar]

I think you understand it, as I read your explanation. As it says here: http://www.waidiet.com/twd-energy.html
The important factor is that the more muscles are active, the more sugar energy is needed, not fat energy.
The problem with eating big meals (and foods that stimulate appetite) is that it's not easy to gauge when the glycogen depots are full, so it's easy to overeat.
Another issue happens with low-fat diets, when the body will conserve the use of body-fat.

[rawfoodhealth]

I researched it a bit after I posted the question, and I think the explanation is that fats cannot be converted into sugar. (A small amount can be converted but most of it cannot.) Therefore, after using up the blood glucose and muscle and liver glycogen, one must replace the sugars by ingesting an equal amount of sugars. However, one usually ingests protein and fats along with sugars in a meal, so it's easy to deposit more fats into the fat depots than are needed. Protein can also be turned into sugar through gluconeogenesis, so protein isn't as much a problem as fats in a meal post-exercise.

"While its true the total number of calories burned increases, and even the calories burned from fat increase, there is not much appreciable gain from stepping up the intensity, mainly because whatever calories burned that are not fat, must come from carbohydrate, and as previously mention fats cannot be converted into carbohydrates, therefore any carbohydrate calories burned, must inevitably be eaten back again to fill muscle glycogen , either as carbohydrate, or through gluconeogenisis, while the same is not true of fat."

http://scienceblogs.com/obesitypanacea/ ... ing_zo.php

The glycogen method of weight loss is really about allowing oneself to eat some munch food without getting fat -- without impeding the natural weight losing process that the body initiates when you are overweight. (This is how I understand it.)

So basically (according to Wai's diet), you will lose weight if you eat a natural diet that allows for your body's appetite control to operate unimpeded. Limit the substances (munch foods) that impede the weight control but you don't have to eliminate those foods completely (unless you are super-sensitive to the effects of the beta-carbolines and opioids).

[Oscar]

Yes, that's correct. Of course being completely (100%) on the Wai Diet is the easiest, as there are no addictive and appetite-enhancing influences at all.