Exercise causing a stall?

"Roger Zoul" wrote

:: It certainly does, per unit volume, which is what the other poster
:: said albeit in a shorthand way.

That's not what the other poster said...

The other poster said something like "muscle weighs more than fat", which
most people without an urge to nitpick others would understand to be a
shorthand way of saying "muscle weights more than fat per unit volume".
Based on the fact that the poster was commenting on somebody's lack of
weight loss, suggesting that they were putting on muscle, implying that
perhaps they were shrinking in volume but not seeing it reflected on the
scale... just like a million other posts we've seen here.

I don't know why people feel impelled to pick on that statement, are they so
impressed that they understand the concept of volume vs. mass, and dying to
one-up anyone who appears to lack that understanding, or what? I tend to
assume people understand basic concepts re the physical world until they
prove otherwise, but that's me.

HG

"JC Der Koenig" wrote

Let's see your newbie gains, fatty.

Notice the pathetic attempt to deflect attention from his ignorance.

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

If the shoe fits, JC. You keep suggesting you fall into one or the other of
these categories. Why?

HG

Chris in Tampa wrote:

It's just a real kick in the pants to know you've been working yourself so
hard and being so careful with your eating and it not be reflected on the
scale.

I'm a lurker here (checking in to see the latest death status on Bridget
M, what a ride!) but I wanted to chime in to say that you need to start
looking at your transformation differently.

Stop caring about "weight" loss and start caring about "fat" loss. You
WANT muscle. It fuels your metabolism, it keeps you strong and capable,
it helps to prevent joint injury... no one ever looks bad from
accidently having too much muscle. (You know you won't blow up like a
competing body-builder by accident, right?)

Anyway, what you want to lose is fat. People doing resistance training
DO gain lean body mass (LBM) often for as long as the first six months
while they lose fat. This is FANTASTIC! They're called "newbie gains"
and it's a gift from heaven. Don't squander you newbie gains, ride it
for all it's worth.

My advice is to get a caliper test done at the gym to find out your
current body fat percentage, and then get it retested again in six
months or so. I also like to track my measurements along with my weight
- I use a website www.bfltracker.com to keep my transformation progress.
(I've got pictures of my weight loss over the past 21 months there, too.)

By the way, JC der Koenig, I've got pretty good documentation of newbie
gains there. (I cut out the words "damn" and "****tard" there because
this isn't misc.fitness.weights.) :-)

Dally
244/179/169
42%/27%/23%

Hannah Gruen wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote
::
::::: It certainly does, per unit volume, which is what the other poster
::::: said albeit in a shorthand way.
:::
::: That's not what the other poster said...
::
:: The other poster said something like "muscle weighs more than fat",
:: which most people without an urge to nitpick others would understand
:: to be a shorthand way of saying "muscle weights more than fat per
:: unit volume".

I disagree with that. Those without analytical minds will not read it that
way. Plus, it's just inaccurate.

Based on the fact that the poster was commenting on
:: somebody's lack of weight loss, suggesting that they were putting on
:: muscle, implying that perhaps they were shrinking in volume but not
:: seeing it reflected on the scale... just like a million other posts
:: we've seen here.

Yeah, but I don't beleive those million other posters were putting on any
significant muscle. They claim to be dieting (restricting calories) yet
gaining a few pounds of muscle per week. No way.

::
:: I don't know why people feel impelled to pick on that statement, are
:: they so impressed that they understand the concept of volume vs.
:: mass, and dying to one-up anyone who appears to lack that
:: understanding, or what? I tend to assume people understand basic
:: concepts re the physical world until they prove otherwise, but
:: that's me.

You can do so if you want, but you have no idea what a poster thinks or
means unless they say exactly what they think or mean in regards to comments
like that one. Do you really think adding the words "per unit volume" is a
lot of effort?

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:40:52 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Hannah Gruen wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote
::
::::: It certainly does, per unit volume, which is what the other poster
::::: said albeit in a shorthand way.
:::
::: That's not what the other poster said...
::
:: The other poster said something like "muscle weighs more than fat",
:: which most people without an urge to nitpick others would understand
:: to be a shorthand way of saying "muscle weights more than fat per
:: unit volume".

I disagree with that. Those without analytical minds will not read it
that
way. Plus, it's just inaccurate.

Based on the fact that the poster was commenting on
:: somebody's lack of weight loss, suggesting that they were putting on
:: muscle, implying that perhaps they were shrinking in volume but not
:: seeing it reflected on the scale... just like a million other posts
:: we've seen here.

Yeah, but I don't beleive those million other posters were putting on any
significant muscle. They claim to be dieting (restricting calories) yet
gaining a few pounds of muscle per week. No way.

::
:: I don't know why people feel impelled to pick on that statement, are
:: they so impressed that they understand the concept of volume vs.
:: mass, and dying to one-up anyone who appears to lack that
:: understanding, or what? I tend to assume people understand basic
:: concepts re the physical world until they prove otherwise, but
:: that's me.

You can do so if you want, but you have no idea what a poster thinks or
means unless they say exactly what they think or mean in regards to
comments
like that one. Do you really think adding the words "per unit volume"
is a
lot of effort?



I just say that muscle is more dense than fat.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ten pounds of fat does not weigh more than ten pounds of muscle.
However, However, muscle tissue is more compact and denser than fat
tissue. An equivalent amount of fat - in pounds - takes up more space
than muscle. One example I've see is: if you were to take 10 pounds
of fat and 10 pounds of muscle and roll each of them into a ball, the
ball of fat might be the size of a bowling ball. In comparison, the
ball of muscle would be about the size of a baseball.



On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:29:53 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
wrote:

No, muscle does not weigh more than fat.

And... It is very unusual for anyone to gain lean mass while on a
hypocaloric diet.

Chris in Tampa wrote:

Is this even possible?

In your terms, sure. Your terms could be improved, though.

No diet change, what so ever. The only thing that changed was starting to
exercise 3 times a week, 30-60 minutes hard cardio then about 1 hour of
resistance (weight) training.

*Starting* an exercise program causes the muscles to hoard glycogen
carbs. Glycogen is stored dissolved in water. So starting a new
exercise program causes water retention for a while. A week, a
month, and then the water retention in the muscles stop.

Water is not fat. Hard to imagine while looking down at the
numbers on the scale and even harder when you can't tell exactly
how much water oyu're holding. But what has happened is you are
retaining extra water for the moment, and thus you have continued
to lose fat.

How mush water will be retained at the start of a new exercise
program? Dunno. I retain around 3-4 pounds early on then it
tapers back off in about a month or two, if I start a new weight
program.

The term you search for is density.

--
Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW


"john" wrote in message
...
Ten pounds of fat does not weigh more than ten pounds of muscle.
However, However, muscle tissue is more compact and denser than fat
tissue. An equivalent amount of fat - in pounds - takes up more space
than muscle. One example I've see is: if you were to take 10 pounds
of fat and 10 pounds of muscle and roll each of them into a ball, the
ball of fat might be the size of a bowling ball. In comparison, the
ball of muscle would be about the size of a baseball.



On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:29:53 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
wrote:

No, muscle does not weigh more than fat.

And... It is very unusual for anyone to gain lean mass while on a
hypocaloric diet.

Let's see your newby gains, fatty, and not any more deflections.

--
Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW


"Hannah Gruen" wrote in message
...

"JC Der Koenig" wrote

Let's see your newbie gains, fatty.

Notice the pathetic attempt to deflect attention from his ignorance.

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. --
MFW

If the shoe fits, JC. You keep suggesting you fall into one or the other
of
these categories. Why?

HG

JC is the ASDLC equivalent of the French soldier who stood on the top of the
castle in Monty Pathon.




Hannah Gruen wrote:

"JC Der Koenig" wrote


Let's see your newbie gains, fatty.


Notice the pathetic attempt to deflect attention from his ignorance.


Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW


If the shoe fits, JC. You keep suggesting you fall into one or the other of
these categories. Why?

HG