You have misunderstood the image.The body burns a larger % of fat at lower heart rates, not a larger amount of fat. % and total energy burned are two different things. If I exercise 1000 calories away in 1 hour at a rate that burns 50% fat and 50% glycogen, that's 500 calories out of fat stores. If I exercise at a more intense rate and burn 2,000 calories in that same hour, but at 33% fat 66% glycogen, I have effectively burned 666 calories of fat.
In either case, it doesn't matter as total calories burned is still king here. when you exercise, calories have to come from somewhere - fat stores, muscle glycogen or food that we are digesting. If we just take your example of limiting it to fat an glycogen - even if i burned less fat during a workout and more glycogen, that glycogen has to be replenished at some point. This comes from the food we digest - so it gets favourably partitioned towards muscle cells and so less of it is stored as fat.
As an example, say we make it more even in your favour (which it isn't but just to prove a point) even if both exercisers burned 1000 caloires and one burned 100% from fat, the other burned 100% from glycogen stores. The meal postworkout (whether this be immediately, or within the next week) of 1,000 caloiries will be partitioned into either glycogen stores or fat stores. Our 100% fat guy has full glycogen so.... oooh no, the food cant go in the muscles as they are already full. Ok then, it puts it into fat stores. On the other hand, our 100% glycogen guy who lost NO FAT but now has a 1000 calorie space in his muscles - the food gets stored there and voila.... nothing stored as fat. The efefctive same thing has happened, even thoguh one guy burned more fat during exercise
now this is an illustrative example taking extremes, but it still functions like this in the real world. Scientific studies have proven this over and over , yet people still want to hang on to this old 80's way of false thinking that you burn more fat by doing cardio.
In fact - weight lifting not only burns a higher amount of total caloires during the exercise, but it also creates an afterburn - metabolic arise, for up to 72 hours later. Total caloric expenditure is much greater over the course of a week. The graph you showed only looks at caloric % expenditure over the course of the duration of exercise - an incorrect ay of looking at it.
not that cardio doesn't work - it does, it is just inefficient. It also opens up catabolic pathways which could potentially lead to more muscle loss than the same fat loss through a weight training protocol.
Also its not as simple as taking in and taking out. Metabolic rates have a huge key to play. Its also why its hard to tell actually how many calories we burn in a day. I personally have a very good Vo2 and heart rate. My standing heart rate is very low, it can get into the low to mid 60's. Yet i am about 21%-23% body fat. It takes forever for my heart rate to get going when i run. i could do 5 all out sprints for a minute each and still not struggle to catch my breath. Someone could be the same weight and couldn't be in shape as i am. So, it hard to go through general rules of thumb on this. I am very healthy, but not by looks. So the numbers can lie there are a lot of things going on. That's why going by what machines say you burn is tough to go by.
It is almost as simple as this. Trust me, When you look in depth enough at all this stuff, and you research insulin, you research glycogen, you research leptin, ghrelin, thyroid, high/low glycemic indexes, etc etc etc you actually realise that it IS THIS SIMPLE. people like Taubes like to try and make it out to be more complex, but they are tryingt o sell you an idea and a reason which doesn't exist. If taubes was right (a calorie is not a caloir) why the hell are the Inuits so overweight with their low carb % but the Japanese are largely diabetic free and skinny with their high % of carb intake. It comes down tot he difference in total caloric intake/expenidture
im not talking solely about repairing muscles, I am talking about glycogen replenishment also - which will not happen by solely taking in protein and fat. Muscles need to have teir glycogen replenished so they can work hard next time. If the stores dont get replenished over a long time, the muscle gets eaten away. so not only is it important short term (as you stated) but long term it is vital to maintain training capacity/intensity - a prime determinant of how much lean body mass you maintain during your dieting.
But not everything is as simple as calories. What you eat MATTERS!!! If you have read any of the books coming out about Carbs, its not that simple. Especially if you think all carbs are the same, there not. They are the same in energy expenditure, yes they are, but on other functions in the body, no there not. Especially when talking about sugar.
Sugar, when it enter's your body, it forces your body to produce insulin, to maintain a blood sugar balance. This is known, but it puts the body into over drive (sugar high/crash). If you keep doing this over time, you will develop a resistance to sugar, meaning you wont get the high/low as before. I have experienced this being a pop drinking for 20+ years then stopping then having a can of pop again. I was totally wired and then crashed. But 5 years ago one pop wouldn't effect me like that. Its because i was insulin resistant, meaning that my body overproduced insulin. This has a nasty side effect, insulin regulates how much fat is being stored in our body. More insulin, means more fat will be stored, beyond energy expenditure. Also a nasty side effect with sugar is that it release pleasure hormones from the brain and will cause us to crave it. Anyone who has tried to kick sugar, will get this, you start thinking about a candy bar or pop, your brain will tell you, that is some good stuff, and you have to really try not to eat it. This creates a nasty cycle that has lead to a rise is obesity and type 2 diabetes, as well as other host of diseases and health problems.
What you eat does matter - and you should look to getting the right amount of vitamins, minerals, fiber etc in your diet. But carbs are a great way of doing that. Going anti carb will often leave you more deficient in things which come from grains and the like. But in terms of energy expenditure - it generally doenst matter if they come in the form of sugar, fructose or starch to a large extent (i understand the fructose debate, but it is too largely overrated). again, people who rave about how insulin causes fat gain are looking at such a small part of the picture. If I injected your blood so it was 100% insulin but fed you nothing, you wouldn't gain fat. the body can't magic energy out of thin air.
yes, the sugar high/crash is a phenomenon, but it has nothign to do with weight/fat gain. It may lead you to low energy, but tis not gonna make you put on weight. Plus, when sugar is taken with other things it dilutes the effect. White bread will spike blood sugar, white bread with peanut butter will do so less as the fat slows digestion down. Plus, we are talking about context. 1,000 calories of veg is going to send insulin levels higher than a spoon of sugar.
And sugar does not cause diabetes. Genetics and being overweight are the main contributing factors.
I like your food choices, apart from the no sugar part. I love to put honey on my oatmeal, or have a couple of spoons of sugar. I sometimes do this right before I go to bed - maintained below 10% fat for over 3 years now, and dieted down to this level using these tactics. But its not just about me. Surwit et al found no diff in weight loss when groups were fed equicaloric amounts of high sugar/low sugar diets. And a meta analysis of all the different diets found no diff in weight loss wehn calories were controlled. high protein/high fat/high carb didnt matter.
Low carb performed better first, but then everything else caught up - low carb just promotes water loss initially from all the muscle glycogen stored being dpeleted. This also then promotes more musc'e loss.
The main thing to note about all the diets was the drop out rate. Anytime a macronutrient was cut out (carbs/fat/protein) adherence rates droped. The best diet was a balanced one which focused purely on calories - as it allowed people to eat what they wanted.
Believe me, i tried it all. I've done the crash diet for 6 months, 500 calories a day. I lost 40 lbs, then i was stuck there for 2 years. I was eating 50% carbs, and split on fat and protein. I ran 3 times a week and lifted weights the other two days. I was eating less than what i was working out, DID NOT LOOSE WEIGHT. Then i stopped drinking pop, and i started going low carb, and i dropped 30 lbs to were i am at now, 200 lbs. My diet is about 15% carbs, 40% fat, and 55% protein, roughly. I feel great, i am not bloated anymore, i just kept loosing weight. Guess what, i am eating the same calorie expenditure as i was when i was stuck at 230.
So let me ask you, explain that please?
If you crash dieted to 500 calories a day its likely you completely runined your metabolism drop. Metabolic crashes are real - although it takes a SUSTAINED low calorie to do it. It is more likley that upping your protein caused the weight loss, as protein has a slight metabolic advantage (20%) - although that deals with calories out side so it is still a matter of calories in vs out.
Also, going low carb will always see a great initial weight loss from glycogen stores. It is not uncommon to see a bigger person have the ability to lose 15 pounds in a week by going low carb, but this is fake weight loss - not true fat loss. It would be almost physiclaly impossible to lose this amount of fat in such a short time.
People get hooked on low carb for this initial massive wieght loss. but they, too, then suffer with an inevitable decline in weight loss. Plus it's not good for your health.
Plus it is likely you weren't tracking calories correctly - people are renowned poor at doing this. All studies show that when calories are closely moniotored it doenst make a diff to weight loss. Maybe youa re a physics anomoly, but I would prefer to take the word of scientific controlled studies over a person, especially when the logic doenst fit and my own experiences and experiences of other I know contradict this.
Congrats on losing weight though.