I am new to this forum, a long time zoner...if a bit on and off. I am serious now however about improving athletic performance I am 134 lbsTBW, 100lbs LBM, and figure my top performance will come at 19% BF. Sooo - that means I have to go down 10 lbs BF and gain 4 lbs Muscle. My question is this: Do I work out on an empty stomach? or does that just eat muscle up? The weight training program I am using - BodyFor Life - has me lifting/ aerobic training first thing in the AM on an empty stomach, claiming the body will go right to fat stores to fuel. Is this the fastest and safest way to rid the fat? I want to get back to longer, endurance training asap - after the fat loss (I never could loose the fat even running 6-9 miles a day at 12-14 blocks...!) Thanks!! Ginny

I think the standard Zone wisdom for exercise during the day is a 1-block snack before and a 1-block snack afterwards. There are lots of experts on this board who can tell you if I am correct or not and the reason. You are getting up in the early AM to exercise (which is exactly what I do, because of my schedule). I have never eaten before my workout at 5:30AM, but I either go to bed within 1-1/2 hrs of my dinner meal or stay up 3 hours or so and have a 1-block snack right before bed. Then I get up in the early AM, roll out of bed and exercise. For the past year, I have been exercising, then eating a 1-block snack at 6:30AM, then following it with a 3-block breakfast at 8:00AM. I have been struggling all year though, with the 3-block breakfast not lasting even 4 hours, so even though I have eaten a total of 4 blocks during the morning, I would be ravenous before lunch. I have been zoning for over 2 years so I know the breakfast is balanced correctly. Then entirely by coincidence (well, I had a few days off work), I got out of bed, exercised, ate a 3-block breakfast, and then had a snack 4 hours later. It's EXACTLY the same food as before, only the 3 blocks and the 1 block timing are reversed. And it works much better for me. I'm not starving after 4 hours, and then I snack and by noon I'm still not hungry. I am floored as to why this works, but I have switched my breakfast to 6:30AM now (right after exercise.) Then I snack at 10:30AM and I feel great at noon. I'm just sorry it took me a year to stumble on this. Anyway it's something you might try. Happy zoning, Kate

Hi, The one block snack before and after exercise is not a hard and fast rule. It's purpose is to assure that you remain in the Zone. This can be accomplinshed in other ways, too. You should not exercise on an empty stomach first thing in the morning if you wish to remain in the Zone. Being in the Zone will assure you are tapping into fat for fuel. Kate, I'm not surprised at all that you are not hungry now that you have changed to eating the 3 block breakfast right after exercise and the one block snack late in the morning. But you are still missing one piece of the puzzle. The bedtime snack will not sustain you in the Zone through your entire morning workout. It is [b:ffd4990f42]not[/b:ffd4990f42] recommended to exercise in first thing in the morning without having a one block snack first. You will most likely acheive even better results by having the one block snack as soon as you wake up, exercising, and then having the 3 block breakfast. If that means you then have too long to go until lunch, add another snack in the morning. This will usually not interfere with your Zoning progress. Sue

[quote:265a029cdd="GinGerSnapper"] (I never could loose the fat even running 6-9 miles a day at 12-14 blocks...!) Thanks!! [/quote:265a029cdd] Either you're eating a lot more than you think or you have a severely depressed metabolic rate, because otherwise you'd be expending 60-75% of your caloric intake on exercise alone.......! To even maintain your weight on that kind of program would border on impossible.

[quote:5b59526d4e][quote="Slknorr"] [quote:5b59526d4e] The one block snack before and after exercise is not a hard and fast rule. It's purpose is to assure that you remain in the Zone. This can be accomplinshed in other ways, too. You should not exercise on an empty stomach first thing in the morning if you wish to remain in the Zone. Being in the Zone will assure you are tapping into fat for fuel. [/quote:5b59526d4e][/quote:5b59526d4e] OK - so: What other ways can you accomplish staying in the zone other than eating in the zone? Basically the body-for-life program differs completely with the idea of eating/staying the Zone - saying if you have no food in AM that you go right to fat stores to fuel - that the body is in a certain state after a "fast" - either three hours w/o food in the day or in the AM before food, where if you do NOT eat - your fat will be used for fuel directly, that any eating just means that you use those carbs/prot/fat first , THEN go to the existing stores. I am inclined to go with the Zone - seems more researched and scientific - but BFL says they are too...(I'm no scientist...I switched from premed to architecture!!). To BrianG - I hear you!! I have never been fanatical about recording my food - but I am now - I have to figure this out. Is it possible I put my body into to some sort of starvation mode by not eating enough? Thank you Kate for the food timing tip! Ginny[quote:5b59526d4e][/quote:5b59526d4e]

[quote:294c2ccc79="GinGerSnapper"] Is it possible I put my body into to some sort of starvation mode by not eating enough? [/quote:294c2ccc79] Possibly, but in your case I doubt that this explanation is adequte for three reasons: 1) 12-14 blocks per day constitutes a low-calorie diet, but it's a long way from starvation 2) the drop in metabolic rate associated with caloric restriction is not enough to negate such a large carloic deficit. You would lose weight at a slower rate and gain it back more quickly if you were to increase your caloric intake suddenly, but you would still lose a substantial amount of weight as long as you adhered to that diet and exercise program. 3) I suspect that you would have a hard time running 9 miles per day on 108-125 grams of carbs, even when in the Zone, as the running alone would burn nearly all of that and you probably wouldn't have enough left over for other physiological functions that require glucose. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that either you have some other medical problem like hyopthyroidism inhibiting your weight loss, or you are simply not limiting your food intake to 12-14 blocks per day [u:294c2ccc79]consistently[/u:294c2ccc79]. The body cannot create energy out of thin air, so if it's not coming from your stored body fat then it's coming from your food.

Hi Sue, Haven't talked to you in a while. I hope everything is going well. I got your message about a 1 block snack before exercise, but if I did that, I'd end up eating 5 blocks in the morning. Lunch is noon and I can't do too much about that (work.) So 5 blocks in the AM, 3 at lunch, 6:00PM snack and I get dinner at 8:00PM a lot of the time. I'd have to cut my dinner to 2 blocks in order to do that (I eat 11 blocks), which is a pain for a couple of reasons. 1/ I don't like eating 2 block dinners. I have to "limit" myself in order to do that, tell myself to stop. With a 3 block meal I don't ever feel I'm limiting myself. It feels like dieting and like a hardship, which is not what the zone is about. 2/ My schedule does vary. Sometimes I snack at 5:30PM, eat dinner (out, with a client) at 7:00PM and then can't go to bed immediately after dinner. So in that case I should have a 1-block snack at night in order to set myself up for the night, and if I did, having eaten 5 blocks in the AM, I'd be overeating. I'm at the weight I want to be for life, right now. I'm in the best shape I have ever been in, except for a teeny bit of body fat that I can't move no matter what I do. I don't want to mess this up, especially since I've bought all new pants. Ha ha. How much damage is it going to do me to continue the way I am now (11 blocks, eating b-fast right after exercise)? Or should I bite the bullet and start eating the 2-block dinner? Maybe I could just get used to that and it wouldn't seem like a hardship..... Anyway I welcome your comments. Thanks Kate

[quote] 3) I suspect that you would have a hard time running 9 miles per day on 108-125 grams of carbs, even when in the Zone, as the running alone would burn nearly all of that and you probably wouldn't have enough left over for other physiological functions that require glucose. [quote] Please explain why 108-125g would be insufficient if using predominantly stored body fat for energy. A pound of fat contains 3,500 calories. 9 miles would require a little over 600. If one is utilzing predominantly fat as an energy source, and maintaining that bodyfat% by increasing their fat intake--108-125g of carbs (12-14 protein blocks) with extra fat should be fine unless there is a loss of muscle mass at which point additional blocks (and hence carb blocks) would be required. What's the the carb intake of a sled dog? Were not much different physiologically. [quote] The body cannot create energy out of thin air, so if it's not coming from your stored body fat then it's coming from your food.[quote] She could be getting it from lean muscle tissue which would explain the difficulty to lose body fat.

Hi Kate, If you don't want to add a block, try the one block snack when you wake, two block breakfast after exercise, and a one block snack later in the morning as you usually do. You should not be working out on an empty stomach after sleeping all night. Sue

[quote:a13bcf2191]Please explain why 108-125g would be insufficient if using predominantly stored body fat for energy. A pound of fat contains 3,500 calories. 9 miles would require a little over 600. If one is utilzing predominantly fat as an energy source, and maintaining that bodyfat% by increasing their fat intake--108-125g of carbs (12-14 protein blocks) with extra fat should be fine unless there is a loss of muscle mass at which point additional blocks (and hence carb blocks) would be required.[/quote:a13bcf2191] Obviously the percentage of fat vs. glycogen burned depends on exercise intensity, so it's impossible to generalize, but how much fat can you really expect to burn in when running at, say, a moderate intensity of 75% or so (i.e. near your lactate threshold)? I believe fully that maintaining optimal insulin levels will allow you to burn a greater percentage of fat at a given intensity level than would be possible otherwise, but I don't believe that lowing insulin is likely going to change someone's metabolism so drastically as to take them from burning 75% glycogen to 75% fat at a given intensity. For my calculation, I was supposing that 50% of her calories were coming from fat- entirely hypothetical, but not unreasonable. At 135 lbs, she would burn roughly 85-95 calories per mile depending on her pace, so over 9 miles she's probably burning something in the neighborhood of 800 calories. At 50% calories from glycogen, that's 400 calories or 100g of carbs- nearly all of her daily intake! Again, the percentage of energy from carbs and fat depends on intensity, so if she were running at an easy pace she might well burn less than 50% carbs- the above example is assuming a higher intensity. [quote:a13bcf2191] What's the the carb intake of a sled dog? Were not much different physiologically. [/quote:a13bcf2191] I can't really respond to this, because I neither know how many carbs a typical dog sled consumes nor how their physiology compares to ours. However, I am inclined to believe that dogs are designed to survive on less carbs than humans, given that their only glucose came from animal sources. [quote:a13bcf2191] She could be getting it from lean muscle tissue which would explain the difficulty to lose body fat.[/quote:a13bcf2191] That's true, so I was wrong to say that it either comes from your adipose or your food; it could come from muscle tissue also, among several other places. Still, it's very unlikely that she would be losing muscle tissue to the exclusion of fat, especially on the Zone Diet. Anyway, she would at least see her weight on the scale drop if she were losing muscle tissue.

Bingo - I AM hypothyroid - though I have been "treated" and have been taking armor thyroid for several years. I get checked periodically and I am "in the normal" range. I should have it checked again...and maybe change to a synthetic thyroid replacement. It is not that I hadn't thought of that but you point out that I really ought to have it rechecked asap...thanks Brian. On the 9 miles - that was one day a week - my long run - I ran 5 days a week and the other days were 6 - not that it makes a huge difference - but just to clarify. I am being super consistent diet wise right now, so I can gather some accurate data. Though I know for three to four weeks I did not eat more than max 15 blocks a day while I ran so much and did not loose weight. I also felt fatigued (thyroid?). So - it is my understanding that staying in the zone provides the nutrients so that you do not use lean muscle - but you burn fat - is that right? So if was in the zone for that running I should have been accessing fat stored right? How do you feed the body to burn fat "fastest" - and "safely" - ie w/o burning muscle? 1) during non-exercize periods, and, 2) during exercize Is the jury out on whether you need to eat prior to AM workouts to be in the zone and hense burn fat instead of muscle? Is the AM a "special metabolic state" where you have an opportunity to not eat and access fat stores anyway as the Body For Life literature suggests? Is being in the zone more important to athletic performance perhaps rather than as a catalyst to fat-burning? It's pretty clear that I bonk after 45-60 min if I don't recharge...but I seem to find it is even better to have the eating way behind me - ie several hours before exercize. Thanks for everyone's input! Ginny

[quote:c8645481d1]I don't believe that lowing insulin is likely going to change someone's metabolism so drastically as to take them from burning 75% glycogen to 75% fat at a given intensity. For my calculation, I was supposing that 50% of her calories were coming from fat- entirely hypothetical, but not unreasonable. At 135 lbs, she would burn roughly 85-95 calories per mile depending on her pace, so over 9 miles she's probably burning something in the neighborhood of 800 calories. At 50% calories from glycogen, that's 400 calories or 100g of carbs- nearly all of her daily intake! [/quote:c8645481d1] I guess that's where our views differ. I know you are being hypothetical with your figures (i was going to do the same but I simply do not know what the %utilization at a given intensity is), but my thoughts are that with proper diet and training you could achieve a lot better than 50/50. A 70/30 utilization would be 60g carbs. As you know, the whole point of training is to increase fat utilization and spare glycogen. Studies support that it is this sparing effect, not the absolute amount of carbohydrate that determines endurance. Wouldn't a marathon runner even on a high-carb diet be at least 50/50 to maintain that pace for 26 miles? [quote:c8645481d1] Still, it's very unlikely that she would be losing muscle tissue to the exclusion of fat, especially on the Zone Diet. [/quote:c8645481d1] I suppose that depends on how you define the Zone Diet. If she is not getting enough blocks or not doubling perhaps tripling fat blocks in accordance with Zone princples, she could be losing LBM, despite "Zoning". It takes fat to burn fat. [quote:c8645481d1] Anyway, she would at least see her weight on the scale drop if she were losing muscle tissue.[/quote:c8645481d1] Her original post said she could not lose "fat"--but if she meant "weight" I would agree with you.

[quote:cd00b2ddf3] So - it is my understanding that staying in the zone provides the nutrients so that you do not use lean muscle - but you burn fat - is that right? So if was in the zone for that running I should have been accessing fat stored right? [/quote:cd00b2ddf3] Whether you are accessing stored fat/maintaining LBM depends on whether you a) have the right protein-carb ratio for your biochemistry b) enough blocks c) whether or not additional fat blocks are required. 40-30-30 simply won't work for a lot of athletes. They require more fat to provide sufficient calories d) your training [quote:cd00b2ddf3] How do you feed the body to burn fat "fastest" - and "safely" - ie w/o burning muscle? 1) during non-exercize periods, and, 2) during exercize [/quote:cd00b2ddf3] The princples our the same, just a shift in substrate utilization (ie stored fat vs. glycogen) as the intensity increases and/or oxygen availability decreases. You burn stored fat by controlling insulin levels whether you are exercising or not. [quote:cd00b2ddf3] Is the jury out on whether you need to eat prior to AM workouts to be in the zone and hense burn fat instead of muscle? Is the AM a "special metabolic state" where you have an opportunity to not eat and access fat stores anyway as the Body For Life literature suggests?[/quote:cd00b2ddf3] I would simply say that if one is on a higher-carb diet, then it make sense to not eat before a work out since the insulin effect would attenuate fat utilization. However, with the Zone, you are already accessing stored fat so the pre-workout snack acts as a hormonal touch-up to keep it going (especially after an overnight fast where cortisol levels have been increasing) [quote:cd00b2ddf3] Is being in the zone more important to athletic performance perhaps rather than as a catalyst to fat-burning? It's pretty clear that I bonk after 45-60 min if I don't recharge...but I seem to find it is even better to have the eating way behind me - ie several hours before exercize. [/quote:cd00b2ddf3] Controlling insulin is important for both athletic performance and fat burning. If you are bonking you are still utilizing glycogen at a rate faster than you would like. It could be the pre-workout snack is spiking your insulin levels preventing you from optimizing fat utilization. (ie a balance bar despite being 40-30-30 may not work if you are particularly carb-sensitive as it is made with maltose which is high-glycemic). Try something different. Certain medications can also raise insulin levels. Also don't be afraid to experiment with doubling or tripling fat. blocks.

[quote="GinGerSnapper"][quote:26e0703e47][quote:26e0703e47="Slknorr"] [quote:26e0703e47] The one block snack before and after exercise is not a hard and fast rule. It's purpose is to assure that you remain in the Zone. This can be accomplinshed in other ways, too. You should not exercise on an empty stomach first thing in the morning if you wish to remain in the Zone. Being in the Zone will assure you are tapping into fat for fuel. [/quote:26e0703e47][/quote:26e0703e47] OK - so: What other ways can you accomplish staying in the zone other than eating in the zone? [quote:26e0703e47][/quote:26e0703e47][/quote:26e0703e47] Hi, When I said it could be accomplished in other ways I didn't mean in ways other than eating in the Zone. I had in mind that if one happens to be exercising say 2 hrs after a meal, and is solidly in the Zone from the meal, that, IMO, the one block snack prior to exercise would then not be necessary. I realize that this is not the case with Kate's schedule, but I was trying to point out that the idea of a one block snack both before and after exercise is not a hard and fast rule. Maybe I should have added "depending upon when one's meals are timed in relation to the exercise session". Sue

Hi Kate, [quote:43bc5c9e74="kate419"]I think the standard Zone wisdom for exercise during the day is a 1-block snack before and a 1-block snack afterwards. There are lots of experts on this board who can tell you if I am correct or not and the reason. [/quote:43bc5c9e74] You are quite right. The zone reason is to maintain a steady blood sugar and insulin which requires eating within an hour of waking. BTW Anne-Marie is doing Body for life, You can read an interesting thread on it at http://www.anne-marie.ca/forums.html White Light

Brian, You said that 2) the drop in metabolic rate associated with caloric restriction is not enough to negate such a large carloic deficit. You would lose weight at a slower rate and gain it back more quickly if you were to increase your caloric intake suddenly, but you would still lose a substantial amount of weight as long as you adhered to that diet and exercise program. I will be in the zone for awhile with a calorie range from 1300 -1500 and then have something out of the zone on a night out with friends. I find I then gain weight back quickly. Its not that I saty eating this way I just treat myself once in awhile. It then discourages me when I see the scale go up, especially when I have been exercising too. How can I prevent this from happening. Thanks, Jess

[quote:50fff6ca25] I will be in the zone for awhile with a calorie range from 1300 -1500 and then have something out of the zone on a night out with friends. I find I then gain weight back quickly. Its not that I saty eating this way I just treat myself once in awhile. It then discourages me when I see the scale go up, especially when I have been exercising too. How can I prevent this from happening. [/quote:50fff6ca25] I would attribute the weight gain after a night out with the friends to water retention which would subside as you resume your Zone eating. This water retention (a consequence of rising insulin levels) will occur before fat accumulation.

I can attest to the "quick weight gain" following a non-zone day. For me it's wheat products. A half a bagel or two slices of bread will net me a four pound weight gain in 1 day. It takes about 3 days for the water to "evaporate" :-) I can also tell it's water weight because my rings won't go on! Robbin