Can I possibly be shredding this many calories?
01-15-09, 08:17 AM
#51
C3 H6 O3 ACID
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Old Peoplesville
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
forgot.Anyway... on my recovery run...I did 3 sprints, lasting 30 seconds...I got a little bored on the run and my mind started to wander so I jolted myself back into things. That's why my Max went to 185. BUT...here is another question...when you go from standing still to running, wouldnt my HR shoot up to show the increase in blood flow and oxygen......
HOLD ON......disregard this....we've already gone toooooo far here.
My numbers are accurate, my HR and averages are accurate. Anyway that's wants to verify can IM me and we can meet up here in the Tampa FL area
01-15-09, 10:07 AM
#52
Sophomoric Member
Hold on guys.... I didnt mean for this to get blown up and get everyone yelling......ohh wait its the BF forgot.
Anyway... on my recovery run...I did 3 sprints, lasting 30 seconds...I got a little bored on the run and my mind started to wander so I jolted myself back into things. That's why my Max went to 185. BUT...here is another question...when you go from standing still to running, wouldnt my HR shoot up to show the increase in blood flow and oxygen......
HOLD ON......disregard this....we've already gone toooooo far here.
My numbers are accurate, my HR and averages are accurate. Anyway that's wants to verify can IM me and we can meet up here in the Tampa FL area
forgot.Anyway... on my recovery run...I did 3 sprints, lasting 30 seconds...I got a little bored on the run and my mind started to wander so I jolted myself back into things. That's why my Max went to 185. BUT...here is another question...when you go from standing still to running, wouldnt my HR shoot up to show the increase in blood flow and oxygen......
HOLD ON......disregard this....we've already gone toooooo far here.
My numbers are accurate, my HR and averages are accurate. Anyway that's wants to verify can IM me and we can meet up here in the Tampa FL area
That's great.
The only potential problem is that this intensity might make it difficult to sustain your exercise program, and it might make you susceptible to injuries. To lose weight, you might be better off sometimes running or cycling for longer periods--an hour a day or more--even if you have to cut back some on the intensity. The fact that you're running intervals on a recovery run indicates that you don't have a good handle on "cutting back" so you might have to go with your character and just run all out, but make sure you get adequate rest and recovery as the intervals and sprints can be brutal. As long as you have the HRM, you could figure out its training uses beyond seeing how high you can crank it up. One use is to set some reasonable HR parameters for recovery, intervals, or whatever else it is that you're trying to accomplish. If your HRM has an alarm feature, that might help you to stick to the parameters when you really just want to go as hard as you can.
To get back to your original question, IMO the calorie (kilocalorie) figures on your monitor should be fairly accurate. The 817 calories is probably correct, since you have checked and found that you have the monitor set up properly. I still question the value of these figures in a weight loss program, but that isn't what you asked so I'll shut up. Good luck in your endeavors, and remember to keep having fun!
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 01-15-09 at 10:11 AM.
01-15-09, 10:25 AM
#53
Sophomoric Member
First off let me say you are right in that it is an overwhelmingly complex system with many many variables. There are always certain circumstances that will, over a short period of time not follow A+B=C, but lest look at your 500 Calorie example.
If you take that person and put them in a lexan cube and only allow 500 Calories per day to enter into that cube, their mass will, without exception, decrease. At the end of the day you cannot get around energy in=energy out in a closed system. All your body does is make heat. If you supply that heat at a rate less than it is being generated, eventually, it will stop.
Now we can argue semantics all day, but for normal, relatively healthy people, if you consume more Calories than you use, you will, over the long haul, gain weight. If you use more calories than you consume, you will over the long haul, lose weight. It really is that simple. I was more arguing with the idea that to lose weight you have to cut intake as opposed to increase exercise.
If you take that person and put them in a lexan cube and only allow 500 Calories per day to enter into that cube, their mass will, without exception, decrease. At the end of the day you cannot get around energy in=energy out in a closed system. All your body does is make heat. If you supply that heat at a rate less than it is being generated, eventually, it will stop.
Now we can argue semantics all day, but for normal, relatively healthy people, if you consume more Calories than you use, you will, over the long haul, gain weight. If you use more calories than you consume, you will over the long haul, lose weight. It really is that simple. I was more arguing with the idea that to lose weight you have to cut intake as opposed to increase exercise.
For one thing, people in the real world are always tempted by extra calories. A hard ride on a hot day, so you stop at the gas station to buy a bottle of water. While in there, you also feel hungry, and like you need some glucose and salt, so you pick up the Big Grab Doritos, a Gatorade, and a power bar. That's 700 calories right there, and you've suddenly negated the 12 miles you rode that day, plus a few miles from tomorrow's ride. Oh well--no weight loss today! You would have been better off (from a purely weight loss perspective) if you had stayed on the couch and not eaten anything.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-15-09, 11:02 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You're absolutely correct, IMO, as long as you're talking about the study of weight loss in a laboratory setting. It's a little different in the real world.
For one thing, people in the real world are always tempted by extra calories. A hard ride on a hot day, so you stop at the gas station to buy a bottle of water. While in there, you also feel hungry, and like you need some glucose and salt, so you pick up the Big Grab Doritos, a Gatorade, and a power bar. That's 700 calories right there, and you've suddenly negated the 12 miles you rode that day, plus a few miles from tomorrow's ride. Oh well--no weight loss today! You would have been better off (from a purely weight loss perspective) if you had stayed on the couch and not eaten anything.
For one thing, people in the real world are always tempted by extra calories. A hard ride on a hot day, so you stop at the gas station to buy a bottle of water. While in there, you also feel hungry, and like you need some glucose and salt, so you pick up the Big Grab Doritos, a Gatorade, and a power bar. That's 700 calories right there, and you've suddenly negated the 12 miles you rode that day, plus a few miles from tomorrow's ride. Oh well--no weight loss today! You would have been better off (from a purely weight loss perspective) if you had stayed on the couch and not eaten anything.
Last edited by kylejack; 01-15-09 at 11:05 AM.
01-15-09, 11:32 AM
#55
Sophomoric Member
You seem to want to ascribe your own temptations to everyone, which is probably why you assert that most people can't make any weightloss progress with exercise. Some of us drink electrolyte enhanced water and other low calorie things to quench our thirst. If you get a 700 calorie hunger from a piddly little 17 mile ride, well, that's not the experience of most people.
Another way to look at this issue is with a metaphor from the business world of fixed costs and variable costs. The vast majority of calories expended are "fixed" costs like basal metabolism, glucose metabolized in the brain, thermal regulation, and energy used in digestion and metabolism. These expenditures are fixed because they're mostly the same, regardless of activity level.
Calories burned in exercise are like "variable costs." Increasing exercise will have some impact on weight, but little impact relative to the fixed costs described above.
You can see this illustrated on a program like Fitday that generates graphs of the energy you expended in a given period of time. No matter how much you exercise, the bar representing caloric expenditure for basal metabolism and body regulatory functions is larger than the bar representing caloric expenditure in exercise.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 01-15-09 at 11:36 AM.
01-15-09, 11:36 AM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Correct for someone sedentary, incorrect for someone with an active lifestyle. Daily calories burned by exercise can easily exceed those from BMR. Easily.
01-15-09, 12:01 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
First off let me say you are right in that it is an overwhelmingly complex system with many many variables. There are always certain circumstances that will, over a short period of time not follow A+B=C, but lest look at your 500 Calorie example.
If you take that person and put them in a lexan cube and only allow 500 Calories per day to enter into that cube, their mass will, without exception, decrease. At the end of the day you cannot get around energy in=energy out in a closed system. All your body does is make heat. If you supply that heat at a rate less than it is being generated, eventually, it will stop.
Now we can argue semantics all day, but for normal, relatively healthy people, if you consume more Calories than you use, you will, over the long haul, gain weight. If you use more calories than you consume, you will over the long haul, lose weight. It really is that simple. I was more arguing with the idea that to lose weight you have to cut intake as opposed to increase exercise.
If you take that person and put them in a lexan cube and only allow 500 Calories per day to enter into that cube, their mass will, without exception, decrease. At the end of the day you cannot get around energy in=energy out in a closed system. All your body does is make heat. If you supply that heat at a rate less than it is being generated, eventually, it will stop.
Now we can argue semantics all day, but for normal, relatively healthy people, if you consume more Calories than you use, you will, over the long haul, gain weight. If you use more calories than you consume, you will over the long haul, lose weight. It really is that simple. I was more arguing with the idea that to lose weight you have to cut intake as opposed to increase exercise.
That's why I think it is correct that in general people who need to lose weight MUST cut intake. They are incapable of exercising away enough calories to force a change in weight. 3500 calories per week of exercise is a good long term goal of a fitness program for a fat person not a way to start losing weight.
The only example I can imagine of a person who could lose a pound a week thru exercise alone is a long term fit person who temporarily stopped exercising, put on a few pounds then went back to exercising heavily before his heart and legs deconditioned very much. Definitely not an example to generalize from.
I am definitely not trying to say that exercise is not valuable in a weight loss program.
Exercise alone probably wont work.
Diet alone is more likely to work.
Diet plus exercise is what should be done.
The MOST important part of exercise is not in helping to create a calorie deficit. It is in reducing the amount of muscle loss relative to fat loss.
01-15-09, 12:06 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What I particularly doubt is the accuracy of the simple calorie model at small deltas. You took my example backwards from the way I intended it. A total intake of 500 cal/day would definitely decrease mass. I meant 500 below some well guessed steady-state baseline number. What the human body can do that the physical model can't is change its own efficiency. I have heard pure calorie theory zeolots actually claim that a 10 calorie/day deficit for a year would result in a pound of weight loss. I think that is nonsense, although I admit my belief is based on personal experience and anecdotal reports from others, not much good science. I believe the body would easily adapt around that level of change and maintain steady weight. I think 500/day deficit is somewhere around the limit of adaptation.
That's why I think it is correct that in general people who need to lose weight MUST cut intake. They are incapable of exercising away enough calories to force a change in weight. 3500 calories per week of exercise is a good long term goal of a fitness program for a fat person not a way to start losing weight.
The only example I can imagine of a person who could lose a pound a week thru exercise alone is a long term fit person who temporarily stopped exercising, put on a few pounds then went back to exercising heavily before his heart and legs deconditioned very much. Definitely not an example to generalize from.
I am definitely not trying to say that exercise is not valuable in a weight loss program.
Exercise alone probably wont work.
Diet alone is more likely to work.
Diet plus exercise is what should be done.
The MOST important part of exercise is not in helping to create a calorie deficit. It is in reducing the amount of muscle loss relative to fat loss.
That's why I think it is correct that in general people who need to lose weight MUST cut intake. They are incapable of exercising away enough calories to force a change in weight. 3500 calories per week of exercise is a good long term goal of a fitness program for a fat person not a way to start losing weight.
The only example I can imagine of a person who could lose a pound a week thru exercise alone is a long term fit person who temporarily stopped exercising, put on a few pounds then went back to exercising heavily before his heart and legs deconditioned very much. Definitely not an example to generalize from.
I am definitely not trying to say that exercise is not valuable in a weight loss program.
Exercise alone probably wont work.
Diet alone is more likely to work.
Diet plus exercise is what should be done.
The MOST important part of exercise is not in helping to create a calorie deficit. It is in reducing the amount of muscle loss relative to fat loss.
The body can certainly switch to more efficient methods, but its not going to paper over a 3500 calorie per week deficit, whether that's created by diet or exercise.
01-15-09, 12:19 PM
#59
C3 H6 O3 ACID
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Old Peoplesville
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wasn't questioning the accuracy of your numbers and I'm sorry if I made you think that I was. I was just wondering what kind of running you were doing to get your HR up so high on both runs. Evidently you're a pretty intense athlete, and you might find it difficult to back off a little, even on a recovery run.
That's great. The only potential problem is that this intensity might make it difficult to sustain your exercise program, and it might make you susceptible to injuries. To lose weight, you might be better off sometimes running or cycling for longer periods--an hour a day or more--even if you have to cut back some on the intensity. The fact that you're running intervals on a recovery run indicates that you don't have a good handle on "cutting back" so you might have to go with your character and just run all out, but make sure you get adequate rest and recovery as the intervals and sprints can be brutal.
As long as you have the HRM, you could figure out its training uses beyond seeing how high you can crank it up. One use is to set some reasonable HR parameters for recovery, intervals, or whatever else it is that you're trying to accomplish. If your HRM has an alarm feature, that might help you to stick to the parameters when you really just want to go as hard as you can.
To get back to your original question, IMO the calorie (kilocalorie) figures on your monitor should be fairly accurate. The 817 calories is probably correct, since you have checked and found that you have the monitor set up properly. I still question the value of these figures in a weight loss program, but that isn't what you asked so I'll shut up. Good luck in your endeavors, and remember to keep having fun!
That's great.
The only potential problem is that this intensity might make it difficult to sustain your exercise program, and it might make you susceptible to injuries. To lose weight, you might be better off sometimes running or cycling for longer periods--an hour a day or more--even if you have to cut back some on the intensity. The fact that you're running intervals on a recovery run indicates that you don't have a good handle on "cutting back" so you might have to go with your character and just run all out, but make sure you get adequate rest and recovery as the intervals and sprints can be brutal. As long as you have the HRM, you could figure out its training uses beyond seeing how high you can crank it up. One use is to set some reasonable HR parameters for recovery, intervals, or whatever else it is that you're trying to accomplish. If your HRM has an alarm feature, that might help you to stick to the parameters when you really just want to go as hard as you can.
To get back to your original question, IMO the calorie (kilocalorie) figures on your monitor should be fairly accurate. The 817 calories is probably correct, since you have checked and found that you have the monitor set up properly. I still question the value of these figures in a weight loss program, but that isn't what you asked so I'll shut up. Good luck in your endeavors, and remember to keep having fun!
No worries... I dont take anything personal in this place....and your 100% correct about injury. At one point (before I found biking) I was running 5-6 miles a night. Then my knees started bothering me and I went to my dr and he almost beat the **** out of me. I calmed it down and found a bike....boy was that bad....running shoes only cost me about $100....talk about the $$$ I've sunken into biking
!Anyway...the weekdays are nuts for me so my only chance to ride long is saturday's with my club. My buddy and I just started riding for 30 minutes at lunch so that calms me.... but you are correct...I need to slow down.
My HR does have alarms so I think my next goal will be to try to stay within certain zones...
Thanks EVERYONE!!!!!!!
01-15-09, 12:29 PM
#60
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - Which of the following strikes you as more likely?
Obese people are:
- Born really fat.
- Wake up one morning and discover they are really fat.
- Over period of years, gradually get more and more obese.
"skinny people stay skinny" - you need to do a survey of skinny people and ask them what effect reaching middle age had on their weight. For me, it meant getting fat for the first time in my life. Obviously one data point is not the foundation for a theory.
"Fat people stay fat and skinny people stay skinny" - in general, yes, I agree with this. But your conclusion is incomplete: "unless they deliberately do something to change their weight", I am under the impression that almost all obese people are very much trying to deliberately change their weight. Hence the billion dollar diet industry. And yet it is undeniable that the vast majority, probably more than 80% fail.
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - over a lifetime this might be valid for a tiny percentage of the population. But over any meaningful timescale it is false for the majority. I look around me and I see it with my own eyes (I can also provide many citations, but I think in your mind you have already discounted authoritative sources) - the vast majority of the population in the first world are either: over weight, obese, or morbidly obese, and the general trend for the majority is increasing obesity (not fixed weight obesity).
If you had said: "Fat people get fatter and skinny people stay skinny (until, for most, they reach middle age), unless they deliberately do something to change their weight." then I would have found that more agreeable. By now you probably think I am just splitting hairs.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
Last edited by HoustonB; 01-15-09 at 12:35 PM.
01-15-09, 01:07 PM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 105
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - Are you serious? I consider my weight to be exceptionally stable, but it still changes. I am in my late 40's. My weight after getting married 9 years ago and joining the sedate American life style, went up more than 40 lbs over a period of 4 years. My maximum weight was probably 220 lbs. I am 6'2 so 220 probably does not sound overweight, but it was not muscle and I was seriously out of shape. I am now back down to 175 lb, pretty much the same weight I was more than 20 years ago.
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - Which of the following strikes you as more likely?
Obese people are:
"skinny people stay skinny" - you need to do a survey of skinny people and ask them what effect reaching middle age had on their weight. For me, it meant getting fat for the first time in my life. Obviously one data point is not the foundation for a theory.
"Fat people stay fat and skinny people stay skinny" - in general, yes, I agree with this. But your conclusion is incomplete: "unless they deliberately do something to change their weight", I am under the impression that almost all obese people are very much trying to deliberately change their weight. Hence the billion dollar diet industry. And yet it is undeniable that the vast majority, probably more than 80% fail.
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - over a lifetime this might be valid for a tiny percentage of the population. But over any meaningful timescale it is false for the majority. I look around me and I see it with my own eyes (I can also provide many citations, but I think in your mind you have already discounted authoritative sources) - the vast majority of the population in the first world are either: over weight, obese, or morbidly obese, and the general trend for the majority is increasing obesity (not fixed weight obesity).
If you had said: "Fat people get fatter and skinny people stay skinny (until, for most, they reach middle age), unless they deliberately do something to change their weight." then I would have found that more agreeable. By now you probably think I am just splitting hairs.
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - Which of the following strikes you as more likely?
Obese people are:
- Born really fat.
- Wake up one morning and discover they are really fat.
- Over period of years, gradually get more and more obese.
"skinny people stay skinny" - you need to do a survey of skinny people and ask them what effect reaching middle age had on their weight. For me, it meant getting fat for the first time in my life. Obviously one data point is not the foundation for a theory.
"Fat people stay fat and skinny people stay skinny" - in general, yes, I agree with this. But your conclusion is incomplete: "unless they deliberately do something to change their weight", I am under the impression that almost all obese people are very much trying to deliberately change their weight. Hence the billion dollar diet industry. And yet it is undeniable that the vast majority, probably more than 80% fail.
"The weight of most people does not fluctuate." - over a lifetime this might be valid for a tiny percentage of the population. But over any meaningful timescale it is false for the majority. I look around me and I see it with my own eyes (I can also provide many citations, but I think in your mind you have already discounted authoritative sources) - the vast majority of the population in the first world are either: over weight, obese, or morbidly obese, and the general trend for the majority is increasing obesity (not fixed weight obesity).
If you had said: "Fat people get fatter and skinny people stay skinny (until, for most, they reach middle age), unless they deliberately do something to change their weight." then I would have found that more agreeable. By now you probably think I am just splitting hairs.
01-15-09, 01:15 PM
#62
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What I particularly doubt is the accuracy of the simple calorie model at small deltas. You took my example backwards from the way I intended it. A total intake of 500 cal/day would definitely decrease mass. I meant 500 below some well guessed steady-state baseline number. What the human body can do that the physical model can't is change its own efficiency. I have heard pure calorie theory zeolots actually claim that a 10 calorie/day deficit for a year would result in a pound of weight loss. I think that is nonsense, although I admit my belief is based on personal experience and anecdotal reports from others, not much good science. I believe the body would easily adapt around that level of change and maintain steady weight. I think 500/day deficit is somewhere around the limit of adaptation.
That's why I think it is correct that in general people who need to lose weight MUST cut intake. They are incapable of exercising away enough calories to force a change in weight. 3500 calories per week of exercise is a good long term goal of a fitness program for a fat person not a way to start losing weight.
The only example I can imagine of a person who could lose a pound a week thru exercise alone is a long term fit person who temporarily stopped exercising, put on a few pounds then went back to exercising heavily before his heart and legs deconditioned very much. Definitely not an example to generalize from.
I am definitely not trying to say that exercise is not valuable in a weight loss program.
Exercise alone probably wont work.
Diet alone is more likely to work.
Diet plus exercise is what should be done.
The MOST important part of exercise is not in helping to create a calorie deficit. It is in reducing the amount of muscle loss relative to fat loss.
That's why I think it is correct that in general people who need to lose weight MUST cut intake. They are incapable of exercising away enough calories to force a change in weight. 3500 calories per week of exercise is a good long term goal of a fitness program for a fat person not a way to start losing weight.
The only example I can imagine of a person who could lose a pound a week thru exercise alone is a long term fit person who temporarily stopped exercising, put on a few pounds then went back to exercising heavily before his heart and legs deconditioned very much. Definitely not an example to generalize from.
I am definitely not trying to say that exercise is not valuable in a weight loss program.
Exercise alone probably wont work.
Diet alone is more likely to work.
Diet plus exercise is what should be done.
The MOST important part of exercise is not in helping to create a calorie deficit. It is in reducing the amount of muscle loss relative to fat loss.
Also, I was not implying anything quantitative in a real sense with A-B=C (although in a totally closed system, it would work), it was just a general rule for people interested in weight loss to use.
01-15-09, 01:20 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
We are in agreement on the small delta t. Over short periods of time, things can vary widely. I think we are also in violent agreement with the "actual" versus "hypothetical" nature of the argument. It still holds that the amount of energy into a system cannot be less than the amount of energy out (you can't get something for nothing, which I hope you are not suggesting). I agree totally with your end points. Exercise alone for weight loss is not usually successful, but that is not because of changing metabolism or adaptation. Most likely it is that they are eating/craving more as a result of the exercise.
Also, I was not implying anything quantitative in a real sense with A-B=C (although in a totally closed system, it would work), it was just a general rule for people interested in weight loss to use.
Also, I was not implying anything quantitative in a real sense with A-B=C (although in a totally closed system, it would work), it was just a general rule for people interested in weight loss to use.
01-15-09, 01:29 PM
#64
C3 H6 O3 ACID
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Old Peoplesville
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
should be simple.
just make sure that you refuel yourself...otherwise you'll destroy your body and end up doing more harm than good.
I just have to figure out a way to shed 20lbs by April.
01-15-09, 01:36 PM
#65
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It would be an extremely rare individual that has stable weight over a protracted period (many years) and also the muscle to fat ratio stays pretty much constant.
If it took 4 years to put weight on, then it is nonsense to try to take it off in 4 months. My philosophy is that losing weight is in itself not necessarily the best end. For the majority - losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 5 lbs of muscle would be much better than just losing the fat.
Visiting the weighing scales on a daily or weekly basis is nonsense - visit the scales once a month and spend a year losing fat and gaining muscle, then the fat is likely to stay off.
Shape is more important than weight!
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
01-15-09, 02:44 PM
#66
Sophomoric Member
I agree completely. If weight is not slowly changing, then you can pretty much bet your last dollar that some muscle is being lost as fat is gained.
It would be an extremely rare individual that has stable weight over a protracted period (many years) and also the muscle to fat ratio stays pretty much constant.
If it took 4 years to put weight on, then it is nonsense to try to take it off in 4 months. My philosophy is that losing weight is in itself not necessarily the best end. For the majority - losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 5 lbs of muscle would be much better than just losing the fat.
Visiting the weighing scales on a daily or weekly basis is nonsense - visit the scales once a month and spend a year losing fat and gaining muscle, then the fat is likely to stay off.
Shape is more important than weight!
It would be an extremely rare individual that has stable weight over a protracted period (many years) and also the muscle to fat ratio stays pretty much constant.
If it took 4 years to put weight on, then it is nonsense to try to take it off in 4 months. My philosophy is that losing weight is in itself not necessarily the best end. For the majority - losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 5 lbs of muscle would be much better than just losing the fat.
Visiting the weighing scales on a daily or weekly basis is nonsense - visit the scales once a month and spend a year losing fat and gaining muscle, then the fat is likely to stay off.
Shape is more important than weight!
- How much lean mass is it realistic for the average man to gain?
- The average woman?
- What type of exercise is best for gaining lean mass, and in what amounts?
- How much lean mass do people gain by cycling?
- How can a person measure if they have lost 10 lbs of fat and gained 5 pounds of muscle?
Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-15-09, 02:58 PM
#67
Sophomoric Member
You have to eat a lot less (about 950 calories less per day).
OR
You can ride your bike more--about 24 miles more on each of the next 74 days. If you miss a day, you'll have to put it on the next days ride. And you must not eat any more than you already do.
945.945946 / 40 = 23.6486487
OR
You can ride your bike more--about 24 miles more on each of the next 74 days. If you miss a day, you'll have to put it on the next days ride. And you must not eat any more than you already do.
(3 500 * 20) / 74 = 945.945946
945.945946 / 40 = 23.6486487
calories in pound = 3500
days until April = 74
desired weight loss = 20
calories burned per mile of cycling = 40
desired weight loss = 20
calories burned per mile of cycling = 40
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 01-15-09 at 03:59 PM.
01-15-09, 03:14 PM
#68
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
A few questions I've always had about gaining lean mass and losing fat:
Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.
- How much lean mass is it realistic for the average man to gain?
- The average woman?
- What type of exercise is best for gaining lean mass, and in what amounts?
- How much lean mass do people gain by cycling?
- How can a person measure if they have lost 10 lbs of fat and gained 5 pounds of muscle?
Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.
5. Purchase a weighing scale that also measures percentage body fat, body mass index, etc. The Salter 9108 for $40 does almost everything:
The Salter 9108 body fat analyzer is a great scale to have if you want to know more about your body health. This scale not only measures your weight, but also your body fat, body water, muscle mass, BMI and BMR
4 and 3: Pretty much any exercise in any quantity (over a certain minimum) is good for developing and maintaining lean muscle mass. But there are dozens of conditions and caveats - a healthy balanced diet is as important as the exercise. The type of muscle mass is determined by whether the exercise is aerobic (with oxygen) or anaerobic (without oxygen). Sprinters and weight lifters are primarily developing what are called fast-twitch muscle fibers, these work anaerobically and result in build up of lactic acid in the muscle - stretching or massage is a good way to clean things up. Most cycling is aerobic in nature and the muscles rely on a steady flow of oxygen to work efficiently.
2 and 1: Rather than thinking in terms of gaining "lean mass", you should think in terms of percentage fat. Generally it is accepted that women have (and need) more body fat than men. Some people go overboard on reducing the percentage body fat down into single digits. Some body fat is not a bad thing. Here are some recommended body fat figures for women at various ages. 15 to 20% body fat for men is normal. Under 10% for athletes. Women can have 20 to 25% body fat and still be considered healthy.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
01-15-09, 03:28 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-15-09, 03:40 PM
#70
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let me know in 10 years time, if you still think fat is on a par with muscle (and other non-fat tissues 
) after gravity has done its thing. I will pick lean and petite with some energy and endurance over Rubenesque any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
) after gravity has done its thing. I will pick lean and petite with some energy and endurance over Rubenesque any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
01-15-09, 03:42 PM
#71
Sophomoric Member
In reverse:
5. Purchase a weighing scale that also measures percentage body fat, body mass index, etc. The Salter 9108 for $40 does almost everything:
Simply keeping track of overall body weight and percentage body fat, will let you know if you are gaining muscle / losing fat. It is extremely unlikely that weight change relates to change in organ mass or bone mass, etc.
4 and 3: Pretty much any exercise in any quantity (over a certain minimum) is good for developing and maintaining lean muscle mass. But there are dozens of conditions and caveats - a healthy balanced diet is as important as the exercise. The type of muscle mass is determined by whether the exercise is aerobic (with oxygen) or anaerobic (without oxygen). Sprinters and weight lifters are primarily developing what are called fast-twitch muscle fibers, these work anaerobically and result in build up of lactic acid in the muscle - stretching or massage is a good way to clean things up. Most cycling is aerobic in nature and the muscles rely on a steady flow of oxygen to work efficiently.
2 and 1: Rather than thinking in terms of gaining "lean mass", you should think in terms of percentage fat. Generally it is accepted that women have (and need) more body fat than men. Some people go overboard on reducing the percentage body fat down into single digits. Some body fat is not a bad thing. Here are some recommended body fat figures for women at various ages. 15 to 20% body fat for men is normal. Under 10% for athletes. Women can have 20 to 25% body fat and still be considered healthy.
5. Purchase a weighing scale that also measures percentage body fat, body mass index, etc. The Salter 9108 for $40 does almost everything:
Simply keeping track of overall body weight and percentage body fat, will let you know if you are gaining muscle / losing fat. It is extremely unlikely that weight change relates to change in organ mass or bone mass, etc.
4 and 3: Pretty much any exercise in any quantity (over a certain minimum) is good for developing and maintaining lean muscle mass. But there are dozens of conditions and caveats - a healthy balanced diet is as important as the exercise. The type of muscle mass is determined by whether the exercise is aerobic (with oxygen) or anaerobic (without oxygen). Sprinters and weight lifters are primarily developing what are called fast-twitch muscle fibers, these work anaerobically and result in build up of lactic acid in the muscle - stretching or massage is a good way to clean things up. Most cycling is aerobic in nature and the muscles rely on a steady flow of oxygen to work efficiently.
2 and 1: Rather than thinking in terms of gaining "lean mass", you should think in terms of percentage fat. Generally it is accepted that women have (and need) more body fat than men. Some people go overboard on reducing the percentage body fat down into single digits. Some body fat is not a bad thing. Here are some recommended body fat figures for women at various ages. 15 to 20% body fat for men is normal. Under 10% for athletes. Women can have 20 to 25% body fat and still be considered healthy.
Lots of good info here. I'm still wondering how many pounds of muscle tissue or lean mass an exerciser can expect to gain. Exercisers say they don't lose as much weight as dieters because they've gained lean mass. "I only lost 5 pounds but it's because I lost 10 pounds of fat and gained 5 of muscle." How do they know this statement is true?
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
01-15-09, 03:52 PM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
01-15-09, 03:57 PM
#73
Βanned.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 620
Bikes: 1976 Dawes Galaxy, 1993 Trek 950 Single Track and Made-to-Measure Reynolds 753 road bike with Campag throughout.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks. Lots of good info here.
I'm still wondering how many pounds of muscle tissue or lean mass an exerciser can expect to gain. Exercisers say they don't lose as much weight as dieters because they've gained lean mass. "I only lost 5 pounds but it's because I lost 10 pounds of fat and gained 5 of muscle." How do they know this statement is true?
Lots of good info here. I'm still wondering how many pounds of muscle tissue or lean mass an exerciser can expect to gain. Exercisers say they don't lose as much weight as dieters because they've gained lean mass. "I only lost 5 pounds but it's because I lost 10 pounds of fat and gained 5 of muscle." How do they know this statement is true?
Edit: To satisfy people that have to take everything literally and have no idea what hypothetical is, I changed 400 to 220. Also note that I do not mention the 'rate' of weight gain on a per week basis etc. The original numbers were meant to be allegorical (a symbolic representation) - but I guess some people need to be spoon fed
To know if "... I lost 10 pounds of fat and gained 5 of muscle." is true, you would need to know the before and after percentage body fat. If a person loses 10 lb and the percentage body fat is unchanged, then there is unlikely to be any additional (lean) muscle mass. edit: in fact they lost muscle weight in equal proportion to fat weight.
In general it is easier to disprove something than the opposite.
__________________
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
LOL The End is Nigh (for 80% of middle class North Americans) - I sneer in their general direction.
Last edited by HoustonB; 01-15-09 at 04:56 PM.
01-15-09, 04:01 PM
#74
triathlete? roadie? MTB?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 384
Bikes: Cannondale Slice One tri bike, Cannondale F300 Hardtail MTB, Bianchi Giro roadie
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It ain't that easy to gain muscle. Even the heaviest bodybuilders, loaded up with steroids don't gain muscle very easily, and no one gains 200 lbs (or 160 lbs) of muscle. Even gaining 5 lbs of muscle is not easy.