It isn't bad, but if you want to lose weight, you have to recycle your bodyfat, using slow, fatty energy.curiousz wrote:Why is it bad to run/jog instead of walk?
working out, walking, cold
- Oscar
- Administrator
- Posts: 4350
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01
Curiousz,
Indeed, jogging / running particularly requires lots of glucose, which is no fat, while it will inevitably strongly stimulate your appetite.
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.
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
Indeed, jogging / running particularly requires lots of glucose, which is no fat, while it will inevitably strongly stimulate your appetite.
If you 'simply want more muscle', regardless of the location, sure.johndela1 wrote: Don't y ou think by doing some big compound moves (dips, pushups, pullups, squats) you add more muscle ...
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.
Why would you want to burn more calories?...and that extra muscle burns more calories all the time?
Squats etc burn a lot of calories indeed, but is burning calories your aim?do you think this will also increase your appetite, too, so it will balance out?
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
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)RRM wrote:Why would you want to burn more calories?...and that extra muscle burns more calories all the time?
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...
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'.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.
Muscles need glucose.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)
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.
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?I guess, I have a hard time understanding why someone wouldn't want to be 'sturdy' as you put it.
Performing better in what respect?I've always looked at exercise as a weight to help one perform better.
To succeed, you need to define your goals very precisely.
What balance are you talking about?I think sticking to a plan like I follow will balance one's body out.
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).
Me too.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%)."
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'.
If one wants to be lean, one should not focus on burning calories, but on burning fat relative to total energy.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.
Why?
You dont want to loose weight, but bodyfat.
Why do you think that anorexics generally are physical inactive?If walking is better than aerobics, than wouldn't just sitting be the ultimate fat burning activity?
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.
Thats because your body doesnt like it.And, I don't like lifting weights at all...
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.
Re: working out, walking, cold
So are people near the equator leaner than people near the poles?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).
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.
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.
I think this is defined by ones bone structure more than anythingRRM wrote:
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?
I think sticking to a plan like I follow will balance one's body out.
I mean balancing out muscle imbalances.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 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.
True, but exercise DOES have an effect. With precise exercises you can sculpture your body.johndela1 wrote:I think this is defined by ones bone structure more than anythingRRM wrote:
Putting it bluntly: do you want a V shape, or the shape of a tree-trunk?
So, putting my question differently:
Do you want to contribute to a V shape, or to the shape of a tree-trunk?
For that, you only need to exercise specific muscles, depending on how you want to sculpture your body exactly.I mean balancing out muscle imbalances.
You also said that you wanted to balance out muscle imbalances.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.
Absolutely, but you can achieve the same athletic build, if you know how to sculpture your body accordingly.I mean maybe good athelese are at the top of the field because they naturally have athletic bodies.
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).RRM wrote:You also said that you wanted to balance out muscle imbalances.
I agree with you. If ones only goal is appearance, then isolation exercises are the way to go.