How to Burn More Fat
If you want to burn more fat, one of the first steps you'll need to take is to reduce your calorie intake.
The problem a lot of people have is deciding exactly how many calories they need in the first place.
There are many different
methods to help you do this. They range from simple formulas,
such as multiplying your bodyweight by a fixed number, to
complicated equations that take into account your height, weight,
age, resting metabolic rate and so forth.
Which is the best one to use?
Personally, I’m a big fan of keeping things as simple as
possible. The approach I recommend (and the one I use myself) is
to multiply your target bodyweight by a fixed number that varies
depending on how much
exercise you're doing.
However, I've had e-mails from people who question whether
this method is particularly effective.
“When calculating the calories required for losing weight,” wrote
one reader, “I have always thought that multiplying by total
bodyweight seems strange since somebody with more fat will burn
fewer calories than someone at the same weight but with more muscle.”
This is a good point.
So I thought it would be a good idea
to explain a little more about why I recommend this simple approach
over what might appear, at first glance anyway, to be more accurate methods.
Firstly, it’s true that the amount of muscle you have does have an
influence on your metabolic rate. However, as I've explained in The Myth about Muscle and Metabolism, the impact isn't as great
as you might think.
You might be surprised to learn that fat has a metabolic rate too.
Contrary to popular belief, fat is not simply a "dead" tissue.
In fact, some researchers now think of fat as an endocrine gland — an “organ” that
responds to signals from hormones and the central
nervous system, as well as secreting a number of bioactive peptides,
such as leptin and interleukin-6 [1].
According to some estimates, fat has a daily metabolic rate of
two calories per pound per day, with muscle clocking in at just
six calories per pound [3].
In other words, if you were to lose two pounds of fat and replace it with two pounds of muscle, your resting metabolic rate would increase by less than 10 calories per day.
Most formulas also ignore the fact that prolonged dieting lowers
your metabolic rate, reducing the number of calories your
body burns every day. However, the extent to which this happens
varies widely from person to person.
For example, a study of
Pima Indians lasting several years shows large differences in daily
energy expenditure — even in subjects
who lost the same amount of weight [4].
In one Indian who lost around 20 pounds in weight, the number of calories burned each day dropped by 400 calories (circled below in blue). However, in another subject who lost the same 20 pounds, daily energy expenditure did not change at all (circled in red).
What this means is that the accuracy of any formula will diminish over
time. In fact, most formulas tend to overestimate the calorie needs of people
who have lost weight — in some cases by over 20%.
As an example, the tendency of the Harris-Benedict equation to overestimate your calorie needs is inversely related to your resting metabolic rate [5]. In other words, the lower your resting metabolic rate, the greater the error will be.
So if you have a low resting metabolic rate (which is going to make it harder to lose weight) you're more likely to overestimate your calorie needs using the Harris-Benedict equation.
Something else to consider is the impact of non-exercise activity thermogenesis, or NEAT for short.
Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) refers to the calories burned during physical activities other than exercise.
I'm talking about things like going to work, playing guitar, tapping your toes, or even just getting out of your chair and walking around.
You might not think that this kind of activity burns a great deal of calories. However, researchers think that NEAT varies substantially from person to person by up to 2000 calories per day [2].
So any formula that doesn’t attempt to take NEAT into account won’t give you an accurate picture of your true calorie requirements.
In his excellent research review, Alan Aragon points out that the simple methods are often just as effective as the complex ones when it comes to estimating your calorie requirements.
"As time passed, I saw the flaws and logical gaps in the traditional formulas. I also came to learn through the literature that each method had its fair share of cautions and limitations."
"As my career of designing diets marched on, I came to realize (and actually admit to) the fact that the simple methods were just as effective as the complex methods, since they tend to generate similar numbers, which end up getting adjusted up or down, regardless."
All that any formula does, no matter whether it's simple or complex, is give you a starting
point.
Then, you monitor your progress, and decide whether you
need to change your training and nutrition plan based on the results
you're getting.
In other words, your
results should dictate the strategy.
Let's say that you set a goal of losing one pound of fat per week. As one of the strategies you use to reach that goal, you follow a diet that provides 2000 calories per day.
If, after a week, you haven't lost any fat (assuming that you've followed your exercise program to the letter), you can try dropping your calorie intake by around 10% (200 calories). Then, you continue to make slight adjustments to your diet and exercise program depending on the results you get.
I’ve known people stick with the same diet and exercise
program for months and months, despite the fact it was delivering
little or nothing in the way of results.
If what you’re doing now hasn’t worked for the last four weeks, four months — or even four years, it’s probably not going to start working tomorrow. You need to try something different.
"There exists a virtually unlimited number of exercise and
nutritional strategies you can experiment with if your initial
plan doesn't produce the results you want," writes Tom Venuto
in Burn
the Fat Feed the Muscle.
"Don't be too dogmatic or rigid in your approach. Be flexible.
It's good to have a plan, but don't get married to your plan. The
more options you have at your disposal, the greater your chances
will be for success. Leave yourself room to improvise."
About the Author
 Christian Finn holds a master's degree in exercise science, is a certified personal trainer and has been featured on BBC TV and radio, as well as in Men's Health, Men's Fitness, Muscle & Fitness, Fit Pro, Zest and other popular fitness magazines.
If you want better, faster results from the time you spend in the gym, click here now for instant access to his step-by-step muscle-building and fat-burning workout routines.
Related Articles
References
1. Kershaw, E. E., & Flier, J.S. (2004). Adipose tissue
as an endocrine organ. Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 89, 2548-2556
2.
Levine JA, Vander Weg MW, Hill JO, Klesges RC. (2006). Non-exercise activity thermogenesis: the crouching tiger hidden dragon of societal weight gain. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology,26, 729-736
3. Wang, Z., Heshka, S., Zhang, K., Boozer, C.N., & Heymsfield,
S.B. (2001). Resting energy expenditure: systematic organization
and critique of prediction methods. Obesity
Research, 9, 331-336
4. Weyer, C., Pratley, R.E., Salbe, A.D.,
Bogardus, C., Ravussin, E., & Tataranni, P.A. (2000). Energy
expenditure, fat oxidation, and body weight regulation: a study of
metabolic adaptation to long-term weight change. Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85, 1087-1094
5. Garrel, D.R., Jobin, N., & de Jonge, L.H. (1996). Should we still use the Harris and Benedict equations? Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 11, 99-103
|
| 
