working out, walking, cold

If you want to get rid of overweight
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

curiousz wrote:Why is it bad to run/jog instead of walk?
It isn't bad, but if you want to lose weight, you have to recycle your bodyfat, using slow, fatty energy.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Curiousz,
Indeed, jogging / running particularly requires lots of glucose, which is no fat, while it will inevitably strongly stimulate your appetite.
johndela1 wrote: Don't y ou think by doing some big compound moves (dips, pushups, pullups, squats) you add more muscle ...
If you 'simply want more muscle', regardless of the location, sure.
The downside of non-precision exercises is that the adding of extra muscles is not precise.
Squats for example, require a lot of supportive action from the muscles located around your waist, so that your waist will expand; squats will make you look more sturdy.
...and that extra muscle burns more calories all the time?
Why would you want to burn more calories?

do you think this will also increase your appetite, too, so it will balance out?
Squats etc burn a lot of calories indeed, but is burning calories your aim?
Squats etc particularly require loads of sugar, which you will have to replenish by eating more. If not, you will be mainly converting muscle protein into available energy, as this will supply you with lots of sugars (about 90%), unlike adipose fat (only 25%)

The amino acids that are readily converted into 'sugars', are: methionine, cysteine, valine, threonine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, proline, serine, and arginine.
Only Leucine and lysine are readily converted into fat-like substances. Phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine, and tryptophane can be converted in both fat-like and glucose-like substances, which will be the latter when your blood glucose level is low.

In adipose fat, every 'sugar-like molecule' (glycerol) is linked to 3 fatty acids
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

RRM wrote:
...and that extra muscle burns more calories all the time?
Why would you want to burn more calories?
I thought we where talking about losing weight. I'm thinking if you carry more muscle hence burn more calories while at rest, you will have an easier time with weightloss (in the form of fat)


I guess, I have a hard time understanding why someone wouldn't want to be 'sturdy' as you put it. I've always looked at exercise as a weight to help one perform better. I exclude isolation exercises and focus on using the most muscle as possible. And lifting fast and balistically.

I know that somepeople want to have better perportions. I think sticking to a plan like I follow will balance one's body out.

Also, I believe this quote
"According to a recent study presented in IDEA magazine, the average female aerobics instructor has 18% bodyfat. This is higher than the average female competitive weightlifter (16%)."

from: http://10.0.1.3/fitness/aerobics.html


I know you are not promoting aerobics, but the second part of the quote is what I'm thinking for this discussion



to sum things up (I know this is very different than what you believe), if one wants to be lean they should focus on compound moves to add muscle to their body so they will burn more calories all the time. If their calories in stays the same they will lose fat.

If walking is better than aerobics, than wouldn't just sitting be the ultimate fat burning activity?

I am open to changing my beliefs by the way. And, I don't like lifting weights at all...
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

johndela1 wrote:to sum things up (I know this is very different than what you believe), if one wants to be lean they should focus on compound moves to add muscle to their body so they will burn more calories all the time. If their calories in stays the same they will lose fat.
More muscle means more energy needed. Same energy intake means more hungry. More hungry means the body will convert muscle mass into glucose for more energy, and hold on to the bodyfat because of the 'food shortage'.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:I'm thinking if you carry more muscle hence burn more calories while at rest, you will have an easier time with weightloss (in the form of fat)
Muscles need glucose.
The greater your muscle mass, the greater the share of sugars in your energy metablism. This means that the share of fats decreases; relatively less fat is burned.

Trying to simply burn more than you consume is hard, and when you succeed, results in 'general weightloss', which is the loss of both protein (muscles) and fat (adipose tissue), and some water, initially.
Loosing weight most efficiently, is by focussing on the loss of fat instead on the loss of weight.

I guess, I have a hard time understanding why someone wouldn't want to be 'sturdy' as you put it.
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?
I've always looked at exercise as a weight to help one perform better.
Performing better in what respect?
To succeed, you need to define your goals very precisely.
I think sticking to a plan like I follow will balance one's body out.
What balance are you talking about?
The balance between muscle mass and adipose fat?
There is a reason why bodybuilders always execute a 2-phase plan in the running up for a contest. The reason is: (1) creating lots of muscle mass and (2) decreasing your fat percentage combines very badly. They only aim for (2) after having accomplished (1).
Also, I believe this quote
"According to a recent study presented in IDEA magazine, the average female aerobics instructor has 18% bodyfat. This is higher than the average female competitive weightlifter (16%)."
Me too.
Do you know why that quote is correct?
The female aerobics instructor burns more calories. She goes on for many hours, while the weightlifter 'only' has her occasional, carefully planned 'explosions'.
to sum things up ... if one wants to be lean they should focus on compound moves to add muscle to their body so they will burn more calories all the time.
If one wants to be lean, one should not focus on burning calories, but on burning fat relative to total energy.
Why?
You dont want to loose weight, but bodyfat.
If walking is better than aerobics, than wouldn't just sitting be the ultimate fat burning activity?
Why do you think that anorexics generally are physical inactive?
Because then its much easier to eat too little.
Exercise is adrenaline secretion, and the resulting decrease in adrenaline strongly increases appetite.
Anorexics that 'succeed' in starving themselves to death are always totally inactive in their final stages.
Also, most 'naturally skinny people' are no athletes at all.
And, I don't like lifting weights at all...
Thats because your body doesnt like it.
It has bad experiences with it (causing lots of muscle damage, and putting too much pressure on your organs), which is eventually translated in 'disliking' the exercise.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: working out, walking, cold

Post by johndela1 »

RRM wrote: Also, when its colder, usually you will also not get as much sunlight exposure, which is not helpful regarding serotonin levels (serotonine is an essential weight-regulator).
So are people near the equator leaner than people near the poles?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

The problem with weight comparisons is that in many sunny countries grilled meat is very popular, which of course, is laden with appetite stimulants.
Within countries its easier to see a relationship; it is well known that in general people tend to gain weight particularly in winter.

Compared to weight, the influence of serotonin on mood is more direct and stronger, and yes, depression is more prevalent the further you go up north.
People in sunny countries seem happier?
Thats true; they are.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

RRM wrote:
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?
I think this is defined by ones bone structure more than anything
I think sticking to a plan like I follow will balance one's body out.
What balance are you talking about?
The balance between muscle mass and adipose fat?
There is a reason why bodybuilders always execute a 2-phase plan in the running up for a contest. The reason is: (1) creating lots of muscle mass and (2) decreasing your fat percentage combines very badly. They only aim for (2) after having accomplished (1).
I mean balancing out muscle imbalances.

I don't advovate bodybuilding. I think bodybuilding is usually meant to make one appear a certain way with no attention giving to performance. Bodybuilders do many isolation exercises.

My goals have usually been to be stronger and quicker in general. Basically to perform as an athelete better. I know this isn't everyone's goal.


When I look at athelets in general, I see gymnasts, rockclimbers, and sprinters as some of the leanest. Maybe I am shouldn't look at a sprinter for example and see that he is muclular and lean and think if I train like him I will be built like him. maybe it is his genetics in the first place that makes him a great sprinter.

I mean maybe good athelese are at the top of the field because they naturally have athletic bodies. As opposed to having athletic bodies because they train for their sport.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:
RRM wrote:
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?
I think this is defined by ones bone structure more than anything
True, but exercise DOES have an effect. With precise exercises you can sculpture your body.
So, putting my question differently:
Do you want to contribute to a V shape, or to the shape of a tree-trunk?

I mean balancing out muscle imbalances.
For that, you only need to exercise specific muscles, depending on how you want to sculpture your body exactly.
My goals have usually been to be stronger and quicker in general. Basically to perform as an athelete better. I know this isn't everyone's goal.
You also said that you wanted to balance out muscle imbalances.

I mean maybe good athelese are at the top of the field because they naturally have athletic bodies.
Absolutely, but you can achieve the same athletic build, if you know how to sculpture your body accordingly.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

RRM wrote:You also said that you wanted to balance out muscle imbalances.
If I said that, that isn't what I meant. I dont' want to focus on balancing out imbal. but that will be a side effect of working the body as unit (as a whole).

I agree with you. If ones only goal is appearance, then isolation exercises are the way to go.
Post Reply