Visceral Fat and SUP

[supsurf-tw]

A few years ago I was into trail running and would do 3 or 4 races a year of over 25kms off road normally mountain trails. Probably trained 4 times a week doing 60 to 80 kms weekly.  Even trained for a 100km fundraising walk.

Didn't loose any weight at al really. But I had a resting heart rate of 51 and could maintain 150bpm for 4 hours. And then eat pies.

Pies will do that.^^^^


As far as calories burned while SUPing its around 600 per hour for a 180 lb guy. 

[Zooport]

Exercise & Calories Burned per Hour 
@130 lbs 155 lbs  180 lbs  205 lbs
Surfing, body surfing or board surfing    
177   211   245   279

I'm no expert, but I think those numbers are extremely low and don't translate from prone surfing to SUPing.  I've read other literature that puts intense SUPing at 500 to 1000 calories per hour.  It all depends on how hard you work at it.  If you are catching waves constantly and/or paddling constantly, there is no way you are burning so few calories as is stated on that site.  I can see it if you are sitting for 10 minutes on a prone board, catching a wave and then sitting for another ten minutes.  But I think we burn way more calories than that with aggressive SUPing.

[PonoBill]

I suspect SUP calories burned depends on the kind of activity and the intensity. SUP is very different from surfing. When I longboarded I only felt like I got exercise paddling out to the lineup and in to the beach. SUP surfing doesn't feel that way, I'm constantly moving and I never sit down--too had to get up with my wanky knee, but I don't usually anyway. I'd guess somewhere around 600 calories per hour. Flatwater could be anything from 300 to 1000 depending on who is doing it and how. Likewise downwind. I see some guys downwind who hardly paddle. Then there's me. I just finished the Olukai, which was only eight miles, and I'm toast.

[SURFnTURF]

A misconception in nutrition is that " calorie is a calorie is a calorie" has left many a dieter frustrated.    Our body treats calories from simple sugars very differently than those from fats and proteins, it even treats different forms of simple sugars differently from each other.   Surf Strength Coach has a blog with an article detailing exactly how, but I lost the link.  In short it said that once your body's stores of carbs is full, any more calories from carbs are more likely to be stored as fat than those from good fats or proteins.  On a related  note, consuming simple sugars will not provide lasting hunger satisfaction the way that fats and proteins will due in part to a lower glycemic index. 
   

[Off-Shore]

Calorie burn is a function of age, weight, heart rate, and duration. I just went online and used a calorie burn calculator and here is the result for a 45 minute workout at 160bpm, based on my age and weight.

"At a heartrate of 160 bpm, or 94% of your estimated maximum heartrate (171 bpm), your calorie burn is an estimated 1,332 calories per hour. In 45 minutes you will burn approximately 999 calories."

During races I will routinely record 160+ bpm averages for a 45 minute or hour race. Downwinding in the 15-20knot range, it'll average 165bpm. For my normal fitness paddling it will average around 130-140bpm, and interestingly putting 135bpm in the calculator gives a result of 1,106 calories per hour..

I know when I SUS in say chest high waves, as PB says, there is waiting around between sets and my average heart rate will be lower than 135bpm with peaks at 160bpm depending on conditions. So in my book, downwinding is the best calorie burner.

Here is the calculator I used

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

[Admin]

A misconception in nutrition is that " calorie is a calorie is a calorie" has left many a dieter frustrated.    Our body treats calories from simple sugars very differently than those from fats and proteins, it even treats different forms of simple sugars differently from each other.   Surf Strength Coach has a blog with an article detailing exactly how, but I lost the link.  In short it said that once your body's stores of carbs is full, any more calories from carbs are more likely to be stored as fat than those from good fats or proteins.  On a related  note, consuming simple sugars will not provide lasting hunger satisfaction the way that fats and proteins will due in part to a lower glycemic index. 
   

A much simpler way to approach it is to count crap calories.  Tally up deserts, wine, drinks, etc that offer no value and see where you are after a week.  That is brutal honesty for most of us.  A scant sounding little desert and a glass of wine a day (300 to 500 calories) can easily add up to 1-2 day's worth of calories per week.  No normal diet and exercise program will overcome an extra day of calories per week. 

[SeldomScene]

In middle age and beyond, your metabolism does slow down.  For years I could eat anything and my workouts would take care of it.  After a certain age, you have to make radical dietary changes to lose that visceral belly fat, the most dangerous type. empty "junk" calories matter a lot.  For example, the bun from a burger has more calories than the burger itself, and to your body, that white flour is just sugar.  Some claim 30 percent protein, some healthy fats, and just enough carbs to keep the motor running is the way to go.  Try tracking your nutrition and workouts on your phone or tablet.   My Fitness Pal (goofy name, great app) syncs with garmin devices and is very easy to use. 

[Admin]

For example, the bun from a burger has more calories than the burger itself, and to your body, that white flour is just sugar.

There is a notable difference there.  Still the best article I have read on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.

[supsurf-tw]

^^^^^^^
These articles generally are geared to extremes, extreme carb consumption, etc. In a normal diet of fairly balanced macronutrients (Protein, fats, carbs) you don't need to worry about much except not taking in more calories than you burn. Your body is always in a state of flux as far as fat storage, fat burning, etc so in the end it comes down to energy balance.

[Admin]

^^^^^^^
These articles generally are geared to extremes, extreme carb consumption, etc.

The article above is about how the body processes various forms of sugars at various levels of consumption.  He includes the converted sugars from starch. 

[supsurf-tw]

^^^^^^^
These articles generally are geared to extremes, extreme carb consumption, etc.

The article above is about how the body processes various forms of sugars at various levels of consumption.  He includes the converted sugars from starch.

That's all well and good, but again, unless you're over consuming highly processed simple carbohydrates you don't need to worry much about it. Gary Taubes isn't known for his overall knowledge of nutrition within the diet\fitness industry.

It's good to be aware of diet and how it affects us, however it's important to understand the big picture of why we get fat......just simply eating too much.

[Subber]

Probably the worst calories people consume in excess are
carbs - high fructose, fructose, other sugars and other crappy carbs
like potatos, rice, wheat, gluten, etc.  Probably all peoplewho are fat
over consume many of these - it doesn't really take that much to make you fat.

Actually, we can get along without any carbs; our body can manufacture them from protein, need be.
 
I think people on Atkins target 50 carbs per day, on Keto around 15 to 20 carbs a day,
and people on zero-carb (pretty much just natural animal products)
don't really target carbs but eat even less than those above.
 
I think people on average consume hundreds of carbs per day - a 12 oz. soda is
usually between 40 and 50 carbs!  Even regular gatorade is 24 grams of carbs for 16 oz.
If I remember correctly, a good tasting apple is 25 carbs, same as two slices of bread.

Next is overconsuming proteins, the excess of which the body will turn
to sugar and then to fat.

Of course, over eating "bad" fats is a bad idea but "science" has delivered
a lot of baloney on what is bad and what is good.  Ancel Keys' landmark study on fats that
said natural saturated fats were bad for us had now been shown to have been thoroughly "cooked" -
He only included data from 7 of the 22 countries he studied so that he could
publish the conclusion he desired.  If all 22 countries had been included in his "study,"
the correlations he claimed fall apart.  -- Anyway, bad fats like margarine, and
other processed fats (hydrogenated fats) probably make us fat too and worse.

[PonoBill]

^^^^^^^
These articles generally are geared to extremes, extreme carb consumption, etc.

The article above is about how the body processes various forms of sugars at various levels of consumption.  He includes the converted sugars from starch.

That's all well and good, but again, unless you're over consuming highly processed simple carbohydrates you don't need to worry much about it. Gary Taubes isn't known for his overall knowledge of nutrition within the diet\fitness industry.

It's good to be aware of diet and how it affects us, however it's important to understand the big picture of why we get fat......just simply eating too much.

Most Americans do exactly that, and so do plenty of young athletes, who get away with it when their activity and intensity is high enough, and then turn to a blob when they age. There's no doubt that simply eating too much makes you fat, but eating the right amount of processed food isn't likely to lead to or support a healthy, active life.

[Admin]

^^^^^^^
These articles generally are geared to extremes, extreme carb consumption, etc.

The article above is about how the body processes various forms of sugars at various levels of consumption.  He includes the converted sugars from starch.

That's all well and good, but again, unless you're over consuming highly processed simple carbohydrates you don't need to worry much about it. Gary Taubes isn't known for his overall knowledge of nutrition within the diet\fitness industry.

It's good to be aware of diet and how it affects us, however it's important to understand the big picture of why we get fat......just simply eating too much.

There is a whole new breed of "skinny obese" in this country.  Calorie intake is not out of whack but an absurd percentage of those calories is coming from sugar.  That is deadly dangerous as this is primarily visceral fat (the subject of this thread). 

Furthermore, you have the majority who make an effort but still struggle with unwanted fat.  "Selective calorie counters" and "except for" dieters .  These threads are full of this.  How many posts detail a great sounding diet...and then a quick line like, "but I still eat Cherry Garcia", "except for my glass of wine", " I cant quit Maliko Pale Ale" etc.?  Counting the crap is great.  Eliminate that, exercise, and it is hard not to lose fat.

[Beasho]

SHOW ME THE DATA 

This is going to be my new tag line.  I hope it catches on around the Globe.

But I will start with a quote:

"If you’re going to try to use exercise to lose weight you need to burn 3500 calories more calories to lose a pound a week."*

And it is correct, like the law of Gravity or F=MA when it comes to human nutrition. 

Sadly the average American takes 4 days of nutrition study in School.  Probably as a part of Home Economics or Health class.  Compare this to ~1,800 days of Math or English (~150 days * 12 years).  The net result is a debate over Voodo-Magic, Spirits of Hope and Goblins of Despair.

In 2008 I found myself uncomfortably heavy and did what I do: Started to Count. 

2.5 million calories later and the magic number is 10.  Said another way: Eat 10 calories per pound of your weight and I guarantee you will lose weight.  These are net calories so if you burn 500 calories running 4 miles (see table of previous sheet) then you can add 500 calories.  3rd grade math here.  For a typical male the break-even number is ~ 12.0 calories per pound when you hit your preferred weight.

I have taken the liberty of running the 3 predominant BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) formulas that have been refined over the last 100+ years for an average male / average female.  11.6 cal / lbs for male, 10.6 for female.  See below.

It takes about 15 minutes a day to count calories.  Multiplying by 10 is easy to do. 

Otherwise as my wife says YOU CAN'T OUTRUN YOUR MOUTH.

*Source PonoBill: http://retirement.pressbooks.com/chapter/exercise-in-retirement/

PS: The other beauty of counting is it brings light to the dark introducing a cost / benefit perspective on flavor & feel (e.g. glycemic impact, processed foods, cheese vs. no cheese . . . .) vs. calories