Obesity Map

On Aug 13, 8:10 pm, wrote:
Well prisoner,..I can only tell ya that for a solid six months I
literally counted calories,.weighed my food etc. [which was mainly
fish,..chicken,..vegetables]. I was down to 1500-1700 cal per day,
food,..drink,..the whole shebang,....I was doing a cardio & lifting
program, 4 days a week,.increased it to 5gays,...40-60 min
sessions.........after six months ,.....I gained a pound,...& in the
mirror it sure as hell didn't look like muscle
So please don't tell me it can always be done,......cause it can't


It can be done...only the measures might be so drastic as to make life
too unpleasant for the effort. Perhaps your genetics are such that
you need to work twice as hard, or more, than me, for example...but it
can be done. If you had a million dollars riding on it, I have no
doubt that you'd find a way to do it!

One thing to realize, though, is that "looks" -- the mirror -- can
only tell you so much. Perhaps it was a pound of muscle you'd gained,
but a pound dispersed among all the various muscle groups! Another
thing to realize is that there is such a thing as overtraining -- yes,
I find it hard to believe myself (no piano student ever over-
practiced, for example; I've never heard of an Olympic gymnast
overtraining) -- and it sounds like your hard-core take-no-prisoners
regimen might have been counterproductive insofar as it made your body
think that you were in an environment of scarcity (due to the physical
hardship and much reduced calories) and thus cling onto every little
fat cell (since fat generally makes more sense than muscle in a
deprivation situation).

But I will agree with you that six months is a long time for you not
to have noticed any results at all, which is what you seem to be
saying -- none at all! There's a piece of the puzzle missing...it
just doesn't make sense...I am almost certain that just two months of
Army basic training will have you losing lots of fat while building
muscle, so...maybe you weren't working out intensely enough, despite
the number of hours logged...for example, with aerobic exercises, you
need to be at a certain heart rate range...for weights, you need to
lift pretty heavy...I used to see some people in my gym who worked out
about as often as me (when I was going five times a week for three
hours on average each time) but who didn't seem to break a sweat, just
casually riding on a recumbent bike, talking on the cellphone....

"Prisoner at War" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 13, 8:10 pm, wrote:
Well prisoner,..I can only tell ya that for a solid six months I
literally counted calories,.weighed my food etc. [which was mainly
fish,..chicken,..vegetables]. I was down to 1500-1700 cal per day,
food,..drink,..the whole shebang,....I was doing a cardio & lifting
program, 4 days a week,.increased it to 5gays,...40-60 min
sessions.........after six months ,.....I gained a pound,...& in the
mirror it sure as hell didn't look like muscle
So please don't tell me it can always be done,......cause it can't


It can be done...only the measures might be so drastic as to make life
too unpleasant for the effort. Perhaps your genetics are such that
you need to work twice as hard, or more, than me, for example...but it
can be done. If you had a million dollars riding on it, I have no
doubt that you'd find a way to do it!

One thing to realize, though, is that "looks" -- the mirror -- can
only tell you so much. Perhaps it was a pound of muscle you'd gained,
but a pound dispersed among all the various muscle groups! Another
thing to realize is that there is such a thing as overtraining -- yes,
I find it hard to believe myself (no piano student ever over-
practiced, for example; I've never heard of an Olympic gymnast
overtraining) -- and it sounds like your hard-core take-no-prisoners
regimen might have been counterproductive insofar as it made your body
think that you were in an environment of scarcity (due to the physical
hardship and much reduced calories) and thus cling onto every little
fat cell (since fat generally makes more sense than muscle in a
deprivation situation).

But I will agree with you that six months is a long time for you not
to have noticed any results at all, which is what you seem to be
saying -- none at all! There's a piece of the puzzle missing...it
just doesn't make sense...I am almost certain that just two months of
Army basic training will have you losing lots of fat while building
muscle, so...maybe you weren't working out intensely enough, despite
the number of hours logged...for example, with aerobic exercises, you
need to be at a certain heart rate range...for weights, you need to
lift pretty heavy...I used to see some people in my gym who worked out
about as often as me (when I was going five times a week for three
hours on average each time) but who didn't seem to break a sweat, just
casually riding on a recumbent bike, talking on the cellphone....





Muscle is gained with high intensity low reps fat is lost with low
intensity high reps. Restricting calories the body will burn the muscle
conserve the fat. When I was training for sports I usually ate 5 large meals
a day. Gained at a rate of 1/2 pound a week.

Bob

On Aug 13, 6:35 pm, "sycochkn" wrote:
Muscle is gained with high intensity low reps

Muscle is gained by exercising muscle to fatigue (or nearly so), as
long as there is sufficient protein replacement afterwards. I believe
that can be done either with heavier weights and low (or high) reps
and with lighter weights and high reps.

fat is lost with low intensity high reps.

Fat is burned when you perform aerobic exercise. This can occur with
high and low "intensity" (weight?) and low and high reps, to varying
degrees. However, the key to burning fat is continuous or nearly
continuous activity. High reps are more likely to achieve that simply
because you spend more continuous time flexing muscle. But you can
achieve aerobic exercise with low reps by reducing time between sets
-- or otherwise maintaining a high metabolic rate (e.g. circuit
training).

Restricting calories the body will burn the muscle conserve the fat.

This myth stems from the body's reaction to duress, for example
survival situations where the body has been starved for days or
weeks. If you exercise aerobically while restricting calories, you
will burn fat, by definition. You will "lose" fat (i.e. avoid
replenishing fat) if you burn more calories than you consume.

On Aug 14, 1:15 am, joeu2004 wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:35 pm, "sycochkn" wrote:


SNIP



Restricting calories the body will burn the muscle conserve the fat.

This myth stems from the body's reaction to duress, for example
survival situations where the body has been starved for days or
weeks. If you exercise aerobically while restricting calories, you
will burn fat, by definition. You will "lose" fat (i.e. avoid
replenishing fat) if you burn more calories than you consume.


I've always wondered about that "myth"...because "Nutrient Timing," by
the Head of Kinesiology at Texas University, says that protein is the
very last resource the body turns to, and typically only after an hour
of exercise.

But I do suppose that some eager-beaver superachievers can really cut
back caloric intake while so hyper-charging their workouts such that
they basically induce a "starvation state" metabolism which leads to
muscle loss and fat retention...hence the persistence of the myth
(muscle magazine advertisements aside).

On Aug 14, 8:47 am, Prisoner at War wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:15 am, joeu2004 wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:35 pm, "sycochkn" wrote:
Restricting calories the body will burn the muscle conserve the fat.

This myth stems from the body's reaction to duress, for example
survival situations where the body has been starved for days or weeks.

I've always wondered about that "myth"...because "Nutrient Timing,"
by the Head of Kinesiology at Texas University

I am not familiar with the book or the author that you refer to. But
I would be skeptical about the content of any book that is
(co)authored by someone who has a commercial interest in the industry
(e.g. sells nutrition products)

says that protein is the very last resource the body turns to

Probably correct, to some degree.

and typically only after an hour of exercise.

That is an exaggeration or misunderstanding. I don't know if the
fault is the authors' or your interpretation.

It is true that nutritional protein -- that is, protein that is
consumed -- is only used by the body as needed at the moment. The
body does not store "protein" (amino acids) for later use, in the same
way that it stores carb (glycogen) and fat (triglyceride). Protein
that is consumed and unneeded at the moment is either broken done and
stored as glycogen (and indirectly as triglyceride, if I remember
correctly) or disposed of as waste. "At the moment" is probably with
an hour or so after consumption.

But that has nothing to do with the relative timing of exercise.

The author's might have said that it is wise to consume protein soon
after intense exercise because the body needs amino acids to repair
muscle and the immune system. But that is not the exclusive need for
protein. The body uses protein (amino acids) for all sorts of things.

On Aug 15, 12:40 am, joeu2004 wrote:


I am not familiar with the book or the author that you refer to. But
I would be skeptical about the content of any book that is
(co)authored by someone who has a commercial interest in the industry
(e.g. sells nutrition products)

Indeed -- turns out that his co-author is an executive with the
company that makes (or helps make) Accelerade!

But nothing in the book suggests any particular product...at no time
did I feel any kind of hidden advertising or guerilla marketing tactic
being employed...rather general principles, really...the book, short
as it is, reads like a much extended and elaborated fitness magazine
article, complete with sidebars....

Probably correct, to some degree.

I should hope so! This overtraining business had me real worried
(even though I now supplement pre, intra, and post-workout)....

That is an exaggeration or misunderstanding. I don't know if the
fault is the authors' or your interpretation.

He states it right there in black and white.

It is true that nutritional protein -- that is, protein that is
consumed -- is only used by the body as needed at the moment. The
body does not store "protein" (amino acids) for later use, in the same
way that it stores carb (glycogen) and fat (triglyceride). Protein
that is consumed and unneeded at the moment is either broken done and
stored as glycogen (and indirectly as triglyceride, if I remember
correctly) or disposed of as waste. "At the moment" is probably with
an hour or so after consumption.

But that has nothing to do with the relative timing of exercise.

Oh, no, he's talking about muscle protein. That is, muscle protein is
the last thing the body turns to for fuel during exercise, and that's
typically after an hour of exercise with no refueling (or, one
imagines, inadequate refueling).

The author's might have said that it is wise to consume protein soon
after intense exercise because the body needs amino acids to repair
muscle and the immune system. But that is not the exclusive need for
protein. The body uses protein (amino acids) for all sorts of things.

What also impressed me, thanks to the book, is how adaptable muscle
tissue is. It changes on, it appears, a day-to-day basis! Or can, it
seems (given how one trains, eats, etc.). I'd not had such a
"dynamic" view of muscle before.

On Aug 15, 2:02 pm, Prisoner at War wrote:
On Aug 15, 12:40 am, joeu2004 wrote:
says that protein is the very last resource the body turns to
and typically only after an hour of exercise.

That is an exaggeration or misunderstanding. I don't know if
the fault is the authors' or your interpretation.
[....]
Oh, no, he's talking about muscle protein.

Of course! You were clear the first time. I don't know how I misread
that.

That is, muscle
protein is the last thing the body turns to for fuel during exercise

Hmm, I think you would have to exercise for many hours before that
would happen. As I recall, the metabolic path from tissue to glucose
or fat (in a form usable for energy) is convoluted and very slow.
That's why it is the body's "last resort"; under normal circumstances,
you will have consumed something by the time the body might start to
"think" about canabalizing tissue.

that's typically after an hour of exercise with no refueling
(or, one imagines, inadequate refueling).

I do not believe that is the major cause of muscle loss during or
after exercise. You (might) lose muscle as a result of normal wear
and tear and the failure to repair it. At least, for normal exercise.

Moreover, the body's destruction of muscle for the purpose of
supplying glucose and fat for energy -- I would not call that "burning
muscle" in the same way that speak of burning glucose and fat -- can
happen in the absence of recreational exercise. Y'think the starving
people of Africa (Sudan etc) are losing muscle because of intense
aerobic exercise and failing to follow it up with some large gulps of
a "designer" energy drink? ;-)

But I am speaking out of school. Perhaps I should read the authors'
point of view before I criticize it. No doubt I am taking your
comments out of context.

On Aug 15, 7:20 pm, joeu2004 wrote:


SNIP

Hmm, I think you would have to exercise for many hours before that
would happen. As I recall, the metabolic path from tissue to glucose
or fat (in a form usable for energy) is convoluted and very slow.
That's why it is the body's "last resort"; under normal circumstances,
you will have consumed something by the time the body might start to
"think" about canabalizing tissue.

I sure hope you're right! I was always puzzled by the body
cannibalism bit, but "Nutrient Timing" confirms it, and he's a
department heat at Texas U, for what that's worth...but if he's right,
at least I have an hour before my body will start digesting muscle
instead of fat....

I do not believe that is the major cause of muscle loss during or
after exercise. You (might) lose muscle as a result of normal wear
and tear and the failure to repair it. At least, for normal exercise.

Well, yes, it's just what you say, only looked at
differently...exercise wears down the muscle...without adequate rest
and refueling it's a net loss....

Moreover, the body's destruction of muscle for the purpose of
supplying glucose and fat for energy -- I would not call that "burning
muscle" in the same way that speak of burning glucose and fat -- can
happen in the absence of recreational exercise. Y'think the starving
people of Africa (Sudan etc) are losing muscle because of intense
aerobic exercise and failing to follow it up with some large gulps of
a "designer" energy drink? ;-)

Yes, you're right, which is why a good balanced diet is important even
on non-training days!

But I am speaking out of school. Perhaps I should read the authors'
point of view before I criticize it. No doubt I am taking your
comments out of context.

It's an interesting little book; I recommend it highly. Reads like a
series of articles in "Runner's World" or something (even though their
focus is on resistance training). I'm now trying to implement their
advice; can't say I've noticed a great dramatic difference yet, but
I've only just started....