Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ronin

90 minute rule

Recommended Posts

Gary_W

I'm not a biochemist; in fact I'm not even sure I have the spelling correct...

 

I can see where the excercise isn't burning fat unless you deplete all the energy stores in your liver first. It kind of makes sense. But surely it's not all doom and gloom?

 

Here is my simplistic thought on the matter based on my very limited understanding. I'd appreciate feedback as to its validity / daftness...

 

If you don't excercise and you eat (which we all do on average 3 times a day in the Western world) then you body takes the carbs and uses insulin to put them in the liver and muscles. Once the liver is full, it has no choice but to lay down the excess as fat. As I understand it, the 'average' liver holds about 100g worth of glucose. I read that on here so have no backup for this statement!!! If someone sensible wants to insert the correct amount please be my guest :)

 

Anyway, if you start eating and the liver is already 'full' then surely the only place for the carbs to go is on your hips? Wheras if your liver is depleted and you eat, the bulk of what you eat gets stored in the liver and goes no further.

 

In between eating and excercising, the liver squirts out glucose. Once it gets down to a certain level, your body takes some fat and converts it back into glucose to use. So the excercise lowers the baseline stores and makes it more likely that you burn fat in between times.

 

So surely the fact that exercise burns the glucose off that you have stored is of benefit to weight loss, even if it's only a little bit of excercise, because it is emptying the bucket of glucose that is your liver? If I understand it correctly, what you eat has to fill the liver 'bucket' up first, and it's not until the bucket is full that you make fat. So if excercise partially empties the bucket then it must help weight loss. Also, there's the old 'fact' (or is it, you tell me?) where muscle mass increases your metabolic rate, so the excercise has that benefit for weight loss as well.

 

My thinking may well be floored but makes perfect sense to me until someone can point out otherwise. Whilst you may not burn fat unless you excercise for long periods, doesn't the above make sense? Thoughts, anyone :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scratch

Actually we're all burning fat some all the time. Some people burn fat more than others do, but if you draw some blood and test for ketones, almost everyone will have some ketones present. Fat's an energy source and the body will use it, it just requires some oxygen for the cells to use it as an energy source.

 

So when you exercise, the cells will make use of whatever energy is most convenient for it to use. Fat or glucose, although glucose will get more preference for energy as heart rates reach higher levels and the cells need to use glucose because there isn't enough oxygen available to burn fat.

 

But what happens over time as the period of exercise lengthens is that the glucose and the backup supplies decrease, after a long enough period depletion can reach the level that's sometimes called bonking in marathons -- there is little glucose left, the body needs to keep the brain working, the body has to convert over to burning fat almost exclusively to keep moving. If you reach that length of exercise, you will be burning almost all fat. But it's not like a switch turns on and the fat suddenly begins burning, fat was already burning before exercise and during the exercise leading up to the point of glycogen depletion. You will also be slowed down a great deal because you have to work completely aerobically so the fat gets the oxygen it needs to burn for energy production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps

Thanks guys. I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing because it is getting results. The purple on the ketodiastix don't lie, the new wardrobe doesn't lie.

 

I do have extra time on my hands the next two weeks, I think I'll bump the cardio to 90 minutes per day 5 times a week over the next two weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
double00spy

Sort of new to board, first time to post. I have been "pre" diabetic for a year or so. after diagnosis I was doing pretty well without meds. in am my gllucose was around 100 or 110. about 3-4 months ago it started creeping up. It seems that if I have a bad food like hamburger bun or pasta my glucose stays high for a day or two and difficult to get it down. I am trying to manage my sugar levels with exercise and diet. normally if I get up in am and I am at 120-or higher I can go for a fast walk 40 minutes or so and get it below 100 and it will stay ok for most of the day. this am I was 130, went to ride stat. bike, got it down to 90. maybe total 50-60 moderate exercise heart beat 120 or so. checked my gl level it ran back up to 100, 110, and is now sitting on 123. in very plain terms can some of you give opinion on what I should do. I ate nothing this am, pasta last night, I know that was bad. I realized I have been using the pink sweetener the last few months and when I was doing well I was using stevia. I need advice on trying to manage gl with diet and exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
double00spy

By the way, I know that I am most certainly diabetic, the pre diabetic thing sounds better but it probably a dangerous thing to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lrhughes

There is some truth to the 90 minute rule, but I'm not sure that I would adopt it as a golden rule for weight loss. Plus for this rule to apply to all of us, we would have to be the same height, weight, and have the same body composition. I don't think that too many of you lovely women are my size. 6'2'', 210 pounds, XXLG gloves and a size 13 ring.

 

From a physiologic stand point, I will burn roughly twice the calories as someone who is half my size. My current body composition consist of 163 pounds of muscle that store a huge amount of glycogen. I will probably start burning fat at a completely different rate than someone much smaller. With all of that in mind, the less fit a person is the less likely they will burn fat at the same rate as someone who is in a marathon condition. There are many, many factors that control how a person burns glycogen, glucose and ultimately fat.

 

I worked with a very bright dietician in Knoxville, TN who once told me the simple truth. If someone wants to loose weight, all they have to do is eat less food - nothing more.

 

Now I'm an exercise fanatic and I believe that all exercise leads to healthy bones and muscles including those in the heart and the smooth muscles in our vascular system. The best advice is to always eat in moderation and push yourself to your physical limit. When you reach that limit, move the bar a little higher.

 

If you would like a useful exercise guide to how many calories you might burn, check this out:

 

Calories Burned Calculator, Very Accurate, Quick and Easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.