General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

Never been to a gym

Old 01-08-19, 12:29 PM
  #126  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
It is a Schwinn AirDyne and provides upper body and lower body workouts
at the same time while sitting. Unlike anaerobic weight lifting, the AirDyne
provides a workout which sculpts as well as enhances endurance, without
inflicting joint damage from overstraining, or overloading. You can't drop
the AirDyne on your toes or feet because you're sitting on it or standing
behind it. Because it is based on air resistance, the harder/faster you go,
the greater the resistance. As a 200 pounder, this machine regularly
provided 1,300 cal hour burn rates when I rode it hard when i was younger.
What does "sculpts" mean with respect to fitness? How exactly does one "sculpt" their body?
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
A combination of standing and sitting workouts on this machine totalling
one half to one hour per day of use gave me a sveldte, six pack look and
I felt great. Never ran faster in my life. Tremendous acceleration. A great
machine for intervals - - cools you as you exercise.
I'm sure it's a great workout, but...
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Find one used cheap and it's all the gym and free wheights you ever need.
No. This does not provide the same kind of adaptations that resistance training does.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-08-19, 09:04 PM
  #127  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 2,924

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2528 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post

In front of the TV now, it's still great for exercise, even though it's 33 years old.
I have never been a big fan of gyms. Too much locker room talk.

In the mid 80's I bought the ugly ergometer pictured below.

It is a Schwinn AirDyne and provides upper body and lower body workouts
at the same time while sitting. Unlike anaerobic weight lifting, the AirDyne
provides a workout which sculpts as well as enhances endurance, without
inflicting joint damage from overstraining, or overloading. You can't drop
the AirDyne on your toes or feet because you're sitting on it or standing
behind it. Because it is based on air resistance, the harder/faster you go,
the greater the resistance. As a 200 pounder, this machine regularly
provided 1,300 cal hour burn rates when I rode it hard when i was younger.

A combination of standing and sitting workouts on this machine totalling
one half to one hour per day of use gave me a sveldte, six pack look and
I felt great. Never ran faster in my life. Tremendous acceleration. A great
machine for intervals - - cools you as you exercise.

Find one used cheap and it's all the gym and free wheights you ever need.
Sorry, but that is an incorrect answer. See post 120. Although no one can argue with the way it makes you "feel".
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
What does "sculpts" mean with respect to fitness? How exactly does one "sculpt" their body?
I'm sure it's a great workout, but...

No. This does not provide the same kind of adaptations that resistance training does.
Progressive resistance -- and although others try to resist it, there's no denying it. Other than that, there is surgery, but I'm assuming that since you included fitness, the question didn't imply anyone being that drastic.

Last edited by KraneXL; 01-09-19 at 04:46 AM.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 04:36 AM
  #128  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,499

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
What does "sculpts" mean with respect to fitness? How exactly does one "sculpt" their body?
Sculpt is just one of those " fitness buzz words" used by many people to mean, loose fat to allow more muscles to show through.
wolfchild is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 07:51 AM
  #129  
Deal4Fuji
Friction Fan
 
Deal4Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 958

Bikes: '82 Fuji Supreme, '84 Team Fuji, '83 Raleigh Olympian, '87 Lotus Excelle, '85 Centurion Ironman, '12 Trek Alpha 1.1, '77 Schwinn Speedster, Schwinn Trailway, Ross Central Park

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 540 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
The truth is that it doesn't have to be expensive...Fitness doesn't require a huge investment of money into fancy equipment....
^^^ True. Anyone remember Nautilus gym equipment and their progressive resistance chain & cam designed machines? Arthur Jones was Sheldon Brown of the weight training movement at one time and I had a membership at a Nautilus based gym with racquetball courts and pool. I digress - after I moved to a smaller town and had expenses that came with raising a family I got out of weight training until at age 50 (my ML crisis) I decided to buy some used free weights thinking rather than paying a monthly membership somewhere I could build a home gym and have something tangible to show for my fitness money. I could get old weights dirt cheap at Play It Again Sports stores vs collector prices on eBay. As I have with bikes more recently, I found a internet forum and became a little obsessed with collecting C&V

Homemade side-pull pulley weights

more homemade


for the daughters, Glamour Bells

Last edited by Deal4Fuji; 01-09-19 at 07:56 AM.
Deal4Fuji is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 08:31 AM
  #130  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
Sculpt is just one of those " fitness buzz words" used by many people to mean, loose fat to allow more muscles to show through.
I know. The point its, it's a stupid/inaccurate word to use. In general, I see it used by either:
1. People who don't know what they are talking about.
or
2. People who are trying to sell something to people who don't know what they are talking about.

Last edited by OBoile; 01-09-19 at 08:36 AM.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 12:31 PM
  #131  
slowrevs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Sculpting and adaptations

Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
What does "sculpts" mean with respect to fitness? How exactly does one "sculpt" their body?
Sculpting is the removal of material to provide a finished product or artwork. Serious, regular aerobic exercise, in sufficient quantity, causes the body to burn fat reserves for energy and increase the density of lean muscle masses as a result. The subtraction of fat, flab and the resultant tightening of the skin organ produces a defined body, one that has been sculpted through exercise.

Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
No. This does not provide the same kind of adaptations that resistance training does.
What kind of resistance are you referring to? How do the muscle adaptations differ? I am curious and always willing to learn something new...
slowrevs is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 01:13 PM
  #132  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Sculpting is the removal of material to provide a finished product or artwork.
Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Serious, regular aerobic exercise, in sufficient quantity, causes the body to burn fat reserves for energy and increase the density of lean muscle masses as a result.
This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.

Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
What kind of resistance are you referring to? How do the muscle adaptations differ? I am curious and always willing to learn something new...
Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 03:49 PM
  #133  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,237

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2803 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.

At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)

The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
Doge is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 10:19 PM
  #134  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Doge View Post
More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.

At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)

The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
No. Just no. The only ones that are likely true are:
Run faster, but only over long distances.
Higher VO2 max since this is based on weight.
Ride further, maybe, but I doubt there is any significant difference here.

There's absolutely no way that ~30 extra pounds of muscle is going to result in someone being able to do fewer push ups or pull ups. It's certainly not going to hinder their FTP (hence why most TT specialists are heavier than pure climbers) and is going to be beneficial for most track cycling disciplines.

The heavier male will be far stronger which will provide a massive advantage in many activities. Any of the 4 major North American sports would favor the heavier and stronger individual. Combat sports all have weight classes for a reason. No 5'10" 140 lb person is elite at Cross Fit. Elite gymnasts (while shorter than 5'10") are built. Rowing has weight classes and favours bigger, stronger people. 170# is also a pretty common weight for pro soccer players. The heavier person would also be far more effective at doing manual labour that involves any sort of heavy lifting. Most elite combat troops are far closer to 170 than 140 too.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-09-19, 11:48 PM
  #135  
Happy Feet
Senior Member
 
Happy Feet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,030
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1128 Post(s)
Liked 17 Times in 15 Posts
I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.

If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.

Last edited by Happy Feet; 01-09-19 at 11:52 PM.
Happy Feet is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 04:16 AM
  #136  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 2,924

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2528 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Well of course, there are diminishing returns with anything. But 90% of us are nowhere near that yet. Especially, nowhere near close enough to use it as an argument.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 05:58 AM
  #137  
livedarklions
Michegas Cup Winner
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 3,071

Bikes: Trek FX 3; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; "Motobecane" Fantom CX

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1525 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.


This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.


Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
My leg muscles are rather large, and all of my lower body workouts are aerobic. I use weights, but strictly for upper body and core. The key for my leg development is resistance. I work out on the bike and on the elliptical. On the bike, I live in the very high gears. On the elliptical, I do hours at max resistance.

I have no idea if this would work for anyone else. I really don't know anyone else who spends 6 hours on the elliptical every weekend in the winter and 14 hours on the bike every weekend in the summer.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 08:38 AM
  #138  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Happy Feet View Post
I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.

If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
Yeah that would be a more reasonable statement.
Of course, 200-210 at 5'10" and 8% body fat is approaching the genetic limits of what a person can do without drugs (IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.

5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.

Last edited by OBoile; 01-10-19 at 08:42 AM.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 12:10 PM
  #139  
slowrevs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Physics is physics. Fat is fat.

Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Might be best to refrain from using that term unless you're discussing artwork then.


This is false. Aerobic exercise does not significantly increase the amount of lean muscle mass, nor does it signal the body to build/retain muscle to any significant degree.
Also, burning fat and increasing the amount of muscle are two distinct processes. One does not happen as a result of the other.
Also, muscle "density" isn't really a thing. Muscles can grow or shrink. Certain other adaptations within the muscles can occur, some of which are caused by aerobic activity, but that doesn't make them significantly more dense.
Finally, you are constantly burning fat reserves. Constantly. The consumption of fewer calories than what you expend is what causes fat loss. Aerobic exercise will increase caloric expenditure, but it isn't necessary for fat loss. So the "sufficient quantity" is 0.


Strength training. Lifting heavy things, or pushing against a sufficiently difficult resistance. This causes a different adaptation within the body than producing a low amount of force for an extended period of time, as is the case with aerobic exercise. Specifically it sends a strong signal to the body to build/retain as muscle. One look at the bodies of elite strength athletes vs elite endurance athletes should make this quite clear.
Sculpting is a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors, I can't do anything about that.

As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).

Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.

People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."

Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.

As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.

Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
slowrevs is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 12:23 PM
  #140  
slowrevs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Hardly incorrect. Misunderstood, maybe...

Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Sorry, but that is an incorrect answer. See post 120. Progressive resistance -- and although others try to resist it, there's no denying it.
If you have never used an AirDyne ergometer, saddle up when you find one and learn what progressive resistance is all about.
slowrevs is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 12:26 PM
  #141  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 2,924

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2528 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Yeah that would be a more reasonable statement.
Of course, 200-210 at 5'10" and 8% body fat is approaching the genetic limits of what a person can do without drugs
Not possible naturally; that person would look massive. That is an unusual feat even with drugs.
(IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.

5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.
These are marathon runner characteristics. They can achieve very low bf, but being very skinny is the results.

Last edited by KraneXL; 01-10-19 at 11:24 PM. Reason: edited for better clarity
KraneXL is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 07:58 PM
  #142  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 664 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Sculpting is a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors, I can't do anything about that.

As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).

Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.

People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."

Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.

As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.

Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
This post makes it clear that you are neither knowledgeable on this subject, nor honest. As such, I see little point in continuing this discussion.
OBoile is offline  
Old 01-10-19, 11:51 PM
  #143  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 2,924

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2528 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Sculpting is a metaphor. If you don't understand metaphors, I can't do anything about that.
Actually, you could define the term, and/or give examples.

As for fat burning occurring "constantly," this is a denial of the nature of fat within the body. Fat is a reserve energy resource that doubles as a reserve water "sponge" (another metaphor).

Constant fat burning ONLY occurs in people experiencing a calorie intake deficit in comparison to the caloric expenditure of energy and body maintenance functions, plus any exercise induced calorie consumption added on top of that by either aerobic or anaerobic workouts.
Fat is metabolically inactive. However, the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism. There are myriad supplements and drugs (including caffeine) that can raise your metabolic rate to enhance the burning of fat.

People who are generally overweight and out of shape may not burn any fat at all as part of their normal metabolism. That is why they have such trouble losing weight. As long as calories in exceeds or equals calories out, the fat burning engine has no need to turn on and the body preserves the fat. The body then stores any newly eaten fat, and converts proteins eaten in excess of need to additional fat. This process arose over the eons as evolving Nature decided what processes worked best for living organisms. The process is known as "homeostasis."
Caloric intake definite plays a role in weight management but it is secondary to the role played by your hormones particularly those such as the fat storage hormone insulin and leptin -- a fat-burning hormone.

Eating a lot of carbs or drinking alcohol can easily tip the scales from burn to save mode, as alcohol adds calories at the rate of 9 per gram, twice that of carbs, with zero nutritional benefits.
Carbs trigger the greatest insulin response.

As for an AirDyne not providing a resistance workout, physics is physics whether you are pushing air or iron around. Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.
However, had you done so, your results would likely have been noticeable improved.

Muscle is added when the body sees a need and sufficient protein is available in the diet to allow it. It's that simple.
Generally correct, albeit particularly scientific. It is a "response" reaction
KraneXL is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 08:12 AM
  #144  
livedarklions
Michegas Cup Winner
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 3,071

Bikes: Trek FX 3; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; "Motobecane" Fantom CX

Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1525 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
.Carbs trigger the greatest insulin response.
The relationship between alcohol and fat storage of carbs is a little more involved than that, which is the reason excessive alcohol use is associated with cirrhosis. Alcohol has 7 cal./gm, which is less than fat but more than carbs. The big issue, however, is that the body processes it faster than anything else in part because of its toxicity. Basically, the body puts the other types of calories "on hold" in preference to burning the alcohol. Thus, carb calories tend to be stored as fat at a lower threshold of intake in people who drink excessively, and much of that storage is in the liver, hence the liver scarring (cirrhosis).

There are skinny drunks in the world, but odds are they aren't eating much.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 10:11 AM
  #145  
slowrevs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Could a drug enhanced weight hormone trigger results?

Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Actually, you could define the term, and/or give examples.Fat is metabolically inactive. However, the more muscle you have the higher your metabolism. There are myriad supplements and drugs (including caffeine) that can raise your metabolic rate to enhance the burning of fat. Caloric intake definite plays a role in weight management but it is secondary to the role played by your hormones particularly those such as the fat storage hormone insulin and leptin -- a fat-burning hormone.Carbs trigger the greatest insulin response.However, had you done so, your results would likely have been noticeable improved.Generally correct, albeit particularly scientific. It is a "response" reaction
As ad writers, we are taught to be succinct and write to an eighth grade educational level. I always try to do that unless dealing with an audience known to have a higher degree of literacy. Even eighth graders understand metaphors.

To my knowledge, my post was not about supplements or drug use, but an exercise machine and the effects of aerobic vs anaerobic workouts - with some additional comments on physics and resistance.

BTW, a little science never hurt anyone.
slowrevs is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 10:23 AM
  #146  
slowrevs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Excellent!

Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
This post makes it clear that you are neither knowledgeable on this subject, nor honest. As such, I see little point in continuing this discussion.
The alternate scenario is that I am honest and well informed

You may be either misinformed generally, or simply in error

Either way, your further non-participation in this discussion is fine with me.
slowrevs is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 07:40 PM
  #147  
wolfchild
Senior Member
 
wolfchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
Posts: 5,499

Bikes: I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1304 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by slowrevs View Post
Over the course of one year, I went from 185 lbs. to 211 lbs., while losing two inches from my waist and adding three inches to my chest, four inches to my biceps and three inches to my thighs. During that same period of time, I spent no energy pumping iron, or sitting in a Universal Weight Machine seat.

.

185 lbs to 211 lbs in one year while loosing fat at the same time by doing only cardio ??... It's very hard to believe that you gained 26 pounds of solid muscle and 4 inches on your biceps while loosing fat at the same time from only doing AirDyne bike and no other forms of resistance training. Cardio just doesn't produce those kinds of gains...I can only think of three possibilities here: You must be a genetic anomaly or you're exaggerating or maybe taking steroids... or you're just full of crap
wolfchild is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 08:49 PM
  #148  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 2,924

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2528 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
185 lbs to 211 lbs in one year while loosing fat at the same time by doing only cardio ??... It's very hard to believe that you gained 26 pounds of solid muscle and 4 inches on your biceps while loosing fat at the same time from only doing AirDyne bike and no other forms of resistance training. Cardio just doesn't produce those kinds of gains...I can only think of three possibilities here: You must be a genetic anomaly or you're exaggerating or maybe taking steroids... or you're just full of crap
No, it does not; its a fake claim. Even with drugs, you'd still need resistance training to make changes such as the one described here.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 09:20 PM
  #149  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,376

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2427 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
(5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.).These are marathon runner characteristics. They can achieve very low bf, but being very skinny is the results.
No not really, I've been there myself and it was neither marathon runner nor "really scrawny" when it's 7-8% body fat. In fact it's not far from the middle of ideal weight range for 5'10".
wphamilton is offline  
Old 01-11-19, 09:30 PM
  #150  
Doge 
Senior Member
 
Doge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southern California, USA
Posts: 9,237

Bikes: 1979 Raleigh Team 753

Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2803 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
No. Just no. ...
My first sentence was More muscle is not always good [for every sport]. A good half my examples were cycling related. There is a reason world tour cyclists look like they do. Even for one-day events, the extra weight is a liability once getting beyond a couple hours with any longer. If you are in a sport that works against gravity, or involves a couple hour event, the extra mass will generally not help. Even 100% lean muscle mass. If your sport is on the same horizontal plane, likely the extra mass will help.

That picture posted early (or search) was Kalman Szkalak who was about 240# and lean when he started riding. He got to be a faster more competitive cyclist by losing weight. My kid became less competitive as a cyclist as he could do more pull-up and push-ups (and gained weight).
Doge is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.