Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-31 en napisa³(a):
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:37:51 -0500, (Will Brink)
wrote:

In article , "RCE"
wrote:

"JMW" wrote in message
news

Since the primary issue under this subject header is FAT metabolism, I
would say that "increased metabolism" is very definitely a benefit of
resistance training.


My take on the "new" report is that it simply confirms the calorie in ...
calorie out relationship as it applies to weight loss. For the average,
overweight dieter it is more realistic to cut daily calorie intake by, say
500 to 1000 kcal per day than it is to burn an extra 500 to 1000 kcal per
day through exercise. But either way ... it's the calorie deficit that
matters.

Yes, but it's also the form of exercise you use, macro nutrient ratios,
etc. which this study ignores.

Because for the average Bloke in the street, they make no difference?

In which way they make no difference? Tell and average bloke that
training with weights three times per week and doing an hour of cardio
four times a week will yield comparable results as far as fat loss, but
weights will build some muscles, obviously. Let's see what an average
Bloke prefers to do. I'd rather lift 6 times per week than do three
times per week cardio sessions, so it makes a lot of difference to me.

Eating less calories and doing more, no matter how you achieve it, is
the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. Of course it matters how you achieve it, Playing hamster
works as well as diet, which eats fat and muscles, so if somebody wants
to be a slim weakling it's all the same to them. But not to me. Also,
until you use a very liberal definition of "doing more", your statement
doesn't make much sense. If you compare a cardio session and weight
lifting session, hamsters do more, but get less returns on their
investments, so it's not so simple.

--
Andrzej Rosa

"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-31 en napisa³(a):
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:37:51 -0500, (Will Brink)
wrote:

In article , "RCE"
wrote:

"JMW" wrote in message
news

Since the primary issue under this subject header is FAT metabolism,
I
would say that "increased metabolism" is very definitely a benefit
of
resistance training.


My take on the "new" report is that it simply confirms the calorie in
....
calorie out relationship as it applies to weight loss. For the
average,
overweight dieter it is more realistic to cut daily calorie intake by,
say
500 to 1000 kcal per day than it is to burn an extra 500 to 1000 kcal
per
day through exercise. But either way ... it's the calorie deficit
that
matters.

Yes, but it's also the form of exercise you use, macro nutrient ratios,
etc. which this study ignores.

Because for the average Bloke in the street, they make no difference?

In which way they make no difference? Tell and average bloke that
training with weights three times per week and doing an hour of cardio
four times a week will yield comparable results as far as fat loss, but
weights will build some muscles, obviously. Let's see what an average
Bloke prefers to do. I'd rather lift 6 times per week than do three
times per week cardio sessions, so it makes a lot of difference to me.

Well, it's important to find the forms of exercise that you find enjoyable
and that you'll keep after.

But this average bloke would much rather be out running through the woods or
riding my bikes up and down the mountains, than being inside a building
lifting iron over and over (I do it when I can't get outside, but find it
mind-numbingly boring).

And for weight loss, aerobic exercise like running, cycling, swimming, etc.
burns a lot more calories per hour than weightlifting, so it tends to be
more time efficient.


Eating less calories and doing more, no matter how you achieve it, is
the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. Of course it matters how you achieve it, Playing hamster
works as well as diet, which eats fat and muscles, so if somebody wants
to be a slim weakling it's all the same to them. But not to me. Also,
until you use a very liberal definition of "doing more", your statement
doesn't make much sense. If you compare a cardio session and weight
lifting session, hamsters do more, but get less returns on their
investments, so it's not so simple.

This "hamster" disagrees, as does the recently published study which
indicates that "loss of muscle mass" is not much of an issue with respect to
aerobic exercise.

That said, there are many paths to weight loss and fitness, so best of luck
with your path.

GG

--
Andrzej Rosa

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-02-01 GaryG napisa³(a):
"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-31 en napisa³(a):

Because for the average Bloke in the street, they make no difference?

In which way they make no difference? Tell and average bloke that
training with weights three times per week and doing an hour of cardio
four times a week will yield comparable results as far as fat loss, but
weights will build some muscles, obviously. Let's see what an average
Bloke prefers to do. I'd rather lift 6 times per week than do three
times per week cardio sessions, so it makes a lot of difference to me.

Well, it's important to find the forms of exercise that you find enjoyable
and that you'll keep after.

But this average bloke would much rather be out running through the woods or
riding my bikes up and down the mountains, than being inside a building
lifting iron over and over (I do it when I can't get outside, but find it
mind-numbingly boring).

I prefer to lift outside too. If people knew how to do it, they might
use it more often.

And for weight loss, aerobic exercise like running, cycling, swimming, etc.
burns a lot more calories per hour than weightlifting, so it tends to be
more time efficient.

The point is, that not necessarily. Weights burn less calories during
workout, but recovery from a resistance training session obviously costs
some energy too, so the effects from body recomposition point of view are
roughly comparable. I posted links to a study which compared that.

Eating less calories and doing more, no matter how you achieve it, is
the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. Of course it matters how you achieve it, Playing hamster
works as well as diet, which eats fat and muscles, so if somebody wants
to be a slim weakling it's all the same to them. But not to me. Also,
until you use a very liberal definition of "doing more", your statement
doesn't make much sense. If you compare a cardio session and weight
lifting session, hamsters do more, but get less returns on their
investments, so it's not so simple.

This "hamster" disagrees, as does the recently published study which
indicates that "loss of muscle mass" is not much of an issue with respect to
aerobic exercise.

Did you read the study or just a brain damaged review in popular press?

That said, there are many paths to weight loss and fitness, so best of luck
with your path.

Why would I need luck?

--
Andrzej Rosa

In article , "GaryG"
wrote:


But this average bloke would much rather be out running through the woods or
riding my bikes up and down the mountains, than being inside a building
lifting iron over and over

Yet that form of exercise will not preserve FFM like resistance training
will, which in many ways is the major finding of the study.

(I do it when I can't get outside, but find it
mind-numbingly boring).

Then you are doing it wrong.


And for weight loss, aerobic exercise like running, cycling, swimming, etc.
burns a lot more calories per hour than weightlifting, so it tends to be
more time efficient.

Wrong on all counts. Resistance training has a far greater effect on 24
hour EE, helps preserve FFM, and you are ignoring the very study we are
talking about here and it's results.



Eating less calories and doing more, no matter how you achieve it, is
the only thing that matters.

Nonsense. Of course it matters how you achieve it, Playing hamster
works as well as diet, which eats fat and muscles, so if somebody wants
to be a slim weakling it's all the same to them. But not to me. Also,
until you use a very liberal definition of "doing more", your statement
doesn't make much sense. If you compare a cardio session and weight
lifting session, hamsters do more, but get less returns on their
investments, so it's not so simple.

This "hamster" disagrees, as does the recently published study which
indicates that "loss of muscle mass" is not much of an issue with respect to
aerobic exercise.

The very study we are talking about here found aerobics did not protect
LBM. Are you talking about another study?

Come on, out with it: if protein powders really contain protein, why
can't they be your sole source of protein?

Can't answer it because you have no answer, you charlatan! Don't be
jealous Professor Pollan is more intelligent than you. Don't be
jealous that I trust cnn.com more than I trust you.

You're just another MFW wannabe who doesn't lift enough to deserve
even an hors d'oeuvre on his last day at the gym!

In article om,
"Prisoner at War" wrote:

Come on, out with it: if protein powders really contain protein,

You think they don't?

why
can't they be your sole source of protein?

Ask a 4th grader, they should know the answer. Said 4th grader may give
you some of the "rocket science" stuff you hate so much however.

While talking to th 4th grader, I suggest you also ask:

If turkey is high in tryptophan, and we know tryptophan makes one tired,
how does the turkey stay awake?

Babble snipped.

On Feb 6, 11:27 am, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:
Don't be jealous Professor Pollan is more intelligent than you.

Pollan's area of expertise is glib writing, which isn't something that
a dummy can do, but it's not exactly the same thing as being
intelligent, either. Remember, he's a professor of journalism, not of
science. If he couldn't write well, he'd be as good as a carpenter who
can't hit a nail with a hammer. On the contrary, Pollan could write
two articles that promote diametrically opposing views, yet each would
be as persuasive as the other. Not only that, he'd get paid for both.

There are numerous logical and other flaws in that "Unhappy Meals"
article, not the least of which is that it attacks "nutritionism"
through poor applications of it. (That would be like criticizing
mathematics because some people use it for baseball statistics). It's
not even worthy of being called a strawman argument.

Fact is, that nutrients are real, and what we know about them,
incomplete as that may be, is extremely useful and beneficial.

In general, we are better off than our ancestors were, and it's thanks
to what we know.

Pollan's article amounts to a Neo-Luddistic call to return to willful
ignorance, which is never counted as an option among those who can be
called intelligent.

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 6, 11:27 am, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:
Don't be jealous Professor Pollan is more intelligent than you.

Pollan's area of expertise is glib writing, which isn't something that
a dummy can do, but it's not exactly the same thing as being
intelligent, either. Remember, he's a professor of journalism, not of
science. If he couldn't write well, he'd be as good as a carpenter who
can't hit a nail with a hammer. On the contrary, Pollan could write
two articles that promote diametrically opposing views, yet each would
be as persuasive as the other. Not only that, he'd get paid for both.

There are numerous logical and other flaws in that "Unhappy Meals"
article, not the least of which is that it attacks "nutritionism"
through poor applications of it. (That would be like criticizing
mathematics because some people use it for baseball statistics). It's
not even worthy of being called a strawman argument.

Fact is, that nutrients are real, and what we know about them,
incomplete as that may be, is extremely useful and beneficial.

In general, we are better off than our ancestors were, and it's thanks
to what we know.

Pollan's article amounts to a Neo-Luddistic call to return to willful
ignorance, which is never counted as an option among those who can be
called intelligent.

There was an interesting response to this article published on slate.com
a few days ago

On 6 Feb 2007 11:27:53 -0800, "Prisoner at War"
wrote:

Come on, out with it: if protein powders really contain protein, why
can't they be your sole source of protein?

Depends if they contain all the essential amino acids. If they do,
then they are fine for your protein requirements.

Can't answer it because you have no answer, you charlatan! Don't be
jealous Professor Pollan is more intelligent than you. Don't be
jealous that I trust cnn.com more than I trust you.

You're just another MFW wannabe who doesn't lift enough to deserve
even an hors d'oeuvre on his last day at the gym!

Huh? Is that called for? Are you related to TC?


jack