Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions

Another reason, newbies, why you should forget the friggin' "rocket
science" and just stick to the basics!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....exercise.reut/
index.html


Too many newbies are concerned over minutiae which probably only
benefits elite athletes...just get out there and shake it vigorously,
baby! Forget about how many reps of how many sets, whether your
elbows should be flared or tucked in, or how many grams of this and
that and when...relax, listen to your own body (as opposed to your
ego's wishes to be lazy or be Arnold)...just do it, but make sure to
enjoy it!

Dieting and exercise both equally good at taking off pounds...dieting
alone does not appear to take off muscle along with fat...muscle mass
does not boost metabolism....

Nope, you still can't "spot reduce," hehe, and you should still
exercise -- but stop sweating the small stuff like which supplements,
whether you need more protein, when to take what, how many of what to
lift, how to lift this or that, whether you should do aerobics, blah
blah blah....

In article . com,
"Prisoner at War" wrote:

Another reason, newbies, why you should forget the friggin' "rocket
science" and just stick to the basics!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....exercise.reut/
index.html


Too many newbies are concerned over minutiae which probably only
benefits elite athletes..

Agreed.

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=95


Dieting and exercise both equally good at taking off pounds..dieting
alone does not appear to take off muscle along with fat.

Study does not say that either. The study found both about equal in terms
of loss of FFM, not that dieting does not = a loss of FFM. From the study:

"In our study, fat-free mass was reduced with the 6 month intervention and
was not different between the intervention groups. Our data suggest that
fat-free mass is reduced in parallel with the degree of caloric
restriction and that regular aerobic exercise (5 days per week), at least
in non-obese individuals, does not preserve lean mass."

..muscle mass
does not boost metabolism....

The study didn't even test for that, so how one could conclude that from
that study is a mystery. Funny thing is, all that study actually did was
confirm what we know and other studies find: aerobics and low protein
diets suck for preserving FFM.

Can choice of exercise and or macro nutrient ratios have an effect? Yes,
they can:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/8/1903

"Will Brink" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"Prisoner at War" wrote:

Another reason, newbies, why you should forget the friggin' "rocket
science" and just stick to the basics!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....exercise.reut/
index.html


Too many newbies are concerned over minutiae which probably only
benefits elite athletes..

Agreed.

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=95


Dieting and exercise both equally good at taking off pounds..dieting
alone does not appear to take off muscle along with fat.

Study does not say that either. The study found both about equal in terms
of loss of FFM, not that dieting does not = a loss of FFM. From the study:

"In our study, fat-free mass was reduced with the 6 month intervention and
was not different between the intervention groups. Our data suggest that
fat-free mass is reduced in parallel with the degree of caloric
restriction and that regular aerobic exercise (5 days per week), at least
in non-obese individuals, does not preserve lean mass."

..muscle mass
does not boost metabolism....

The study didn't even test for that, so how one could conclude that from
that study is a mystery.

I don't think they addressed that issue, but the "muscle mass vs.
metabolism" issue has been studied previously.

According to this often-cited study,
(http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/5/331 or
http://tinyurl.com/23fm33 ) Resting Energy Expenditu Systematic
Organization and Critique of Prediction Methods (ZiMian Wang, Stanley
Heshka, Kuan Zhang, Carol N. Boozer and Steven B. Heymsfield), published in
Obesity Research (http://www.obesityresearch.org) in 2001:

"The resting metabolic rate of skeletal muscle is 13 kcal/kg per day (5.9 kc
al/lb per day)."

"The resting metabolic rate of adipose (fat) tissue is 4.5 kcal/kg per day
(2.0 kcal/lb per day)."

So, if you do a bunch of resistance training and manage to replace 5 lbs of
fat with 5 lbs of muscle, your Resting Energy Expenditure will increase by a
meager 19.5 kcal per day...that's less than a 1% increase in metabolic rate
for the average male.

By way of comparison, if you:

Walk briskly for 20 minutes, you'll burn about 100 kcal.
Lift weights vigorously for 30 minutes you'll burn about 200 kcal.
Run 5 miles, you'll burn nearly 600 kcal.
Ride a bike briskly for 20 miles, you'll burn nearly 800 kcal.

Bottom line - lifting weights has many benefits, but "increased metabolism"
is not one of them.

GG

Funny thing is, all that study actually did was
confirm what we know and other studies find: aerobics and low protein
diets suck for preserving FFM.

Can choice of exercise and or macro nutrient ratios have an effect? Yes,
they can:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/8/1903

"GaryG" wrote:

"Will Brink" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
"Prisoner at War" wrote:

Another reason, newbies, why you should forget the friggin' "rocket
science" and just stick to the basics!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....exercise.reut/
index.html


Too many newbies are concerned over minutiae which probably only
benefits elite athletes..

Agreed.

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=95


Dieting and exercise both equally good at taking off pounds..dieting
alone does not appear to take off muscle along with fat.

Study does not say that either. The study found both about equal in terms
of loss of FFM, not that dieting does not = a loss of FFM. From the study:

"In our study, fat-free mass was reduced with the 6 month intervention and
was not different between the intervention groups. Our data suggest that
fat-free mass is reduced in parallel with the degree of caloric
restriction and that regular aerobic exercise (5 days per week), at least
in non-obese individuals, does not preserve lean mass."

..muscle mass
does not boost metabolism....

The study didn't even test for that, so how one could conclude that from
that study is a mystery.

I don't think they addressed that issue, but the "muscle mass vs.
metabolism" issue has been studied previously.

According to this often-cited study,
(http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/5/331 or
http://tinyurl.com/23fm33 ) Resting Energy Expenditu Systematic
Organization and Critique of Prediction Methods (ZiMian Wang, Stanley
Heshka, Kuan Zhang, Carol N. Boozer and Steven B. Heymsfield), published in
Obesity Research (http://www.obesityresearch.org) in 2001:

"The resting metabolic rate of skeletal muscle is 13 kcal/kg per day (5.9 kc
al/lb per day)."

"The resting metabolic rate of adipose (fat) tissue is 4.5 kcal/kg per day
(2.0 kcal/lb per day)."

So, if you do a bunch of resistance training and manage to replace 5 lbs of
fat with 5 lbs of muscle, your Resting Energy Expenditure will increase by a
meager 19.5 kcal per day...that's less than a 1% increase in metabolic rate
for the average male.

By way of comparison, if you:

Walk briskly for 20 minutes, you'll burn about 100 kcal.
Lift weights vigorously for 30 minutes you'll burn about 200 kcal.
Run 5 miles, you'll burn nearly 600 kcal.
Ride a bike briskly for 20 miles, you'll burn nearly 800 kcal.

Bottom line - lifting weights has many benefits, but "increased metabolism"
is not one of them.

Bull****. Your figure for weight training uses only the time of
exercise. During the 45 minutes AFTER resistance training, resting
energy expenditure is elevated by more than 10%, but more importantly,
fat oxidation is more than doubled.

See: Ormsbee MJ, Thyfault JP, Johnson EA, Kraus RM, Choi MD, Hickner
RC. Fat metabolism and acute resistance exercise in trained men. J
Appl Physiol. 2007 Jan 18; [Epub ahead of print]

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.

"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.

As for metabolism changes due to exercise .... I don't know. Based on my
personal experience of the past 3+ months of dieting, daily cardiovascular
exercise and heavy (for me) weight lifting routines every other day that has
resulted in a 50 pound weight loss so far, I would guess my overall
metabolism has slowed. I base that assumption on the following:

My calorie intake requirement to "maintain" current weight has dropped from
over 4000 per day (at 260 lbs) to about 2500 per day (at 211 lbs) according
to the various BMI charts found on the web. I've recently experimented by
consuming over 2000 kcal a day for a week or so while still maintaining the
same exercise program and the weight loss has all but stopped.

The other indicator (I guess) that my metabolic rate has slowed is that my
resting heart rate has dropped from around 80 BPM to around 65 BPM, again
comparing the numbers at 260 lbs and 211 lbs respectively.

As to muscle mass ... I think it's too early to tell. I've definitely added
some mass ... my arms are a bit thicker with a little more muscle
definition, but I am far from being a Charles Atlas.

RCE
260/211/185

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:16:31 -0500, JMW
wrote:

Bottom line - lifting weights has many benefits, but "increased metabolism"
is not one of them.

Bull****. Your figure for weight training uses only the time of
exercise. During the 45 minutes AFTER resistance training, resting
energy expenditure is elevated by more than 10%, but more importantly,
fat oxidation is more than doubled.

Doing what, exactly? Just raising the body's temperature, presumably.

See: Ormsbee MJ, Thyfault JP, Johnson EA, Kraus RM, Choi MD, Hickner
RC. Fat metabolism and acute resistance exercise in trained men. J
Appl Physiol. 2007 Jan 18; [Epub ahead of print]

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.

So, over the 72 hours post weight training, what is the increased fat
metabolism? Presuming you haven't eaten more to compensate for the
increased exercise.

jack

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.

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-30 en napisa³(a):
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:16:31 -0500, JMW
wrote:

Bottom line - lifting weights has many benefits, but "increased metabolism"
is not one of them.

Bull****. Your figure for weight training uses only the time of
exercise. During the 45 minutes AFTER resistance training, resting
energy expenditure is elevated by more than 10%, but more importantly,
fat oxidation is more than doubled.

Doing what, exactly? Just raising the body's temperature, presumably.

You can measure an oxygen consumption too, like they did he
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/2/115

Resting metabolic rate (RMR, mean?SD) expressed as ml/kg/minute for the
resistance plus diet (R+D) and standard treatment control aerobic plus
diet (C+D) groups. RMR increased significantly (p0.05) pre to post in
R+D. It was also significantly greater (p0.05) in the R+D than in the
C+D group after 12 weeks. No change was observed in the C+D group pre
to post.

Resting metabolic rate (RMR, mean?SD) expressed as ml/kg LBW/minute for
the resistance plus diet (R+D) and standard treatment control aerobic
plus diet (C+D) groups. RMR was significantly greater (p0.05) in the
R+D than in the C+D group after 12 weeks. No change was observed in the
C+D group pre to post.

See: Ormsbee MJ, Thyfault JP, Johnson EA, Kraus RM, Choi MD, Hickner
RC. Fat metabolism and acute resistance exercise in trained men. J
Appl Physiol. 2007 Jan 18; [Epub ahead of print]

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.

So, over the 72 hours post weight training, what is the increased fat
metabolism? Presuming you haven't eaten more to compensate for the
increased exercise.

Whatever it is, it simply works.
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/2/115/T2

Results of comparison of three times per week full body resistance
training to four times per week of 1 hour cardio, while on an 800 kcal
diet. People training with weights preserved lean body mass and
achieved better results as expressed by fat % changes. They also
increased their VO2max similarly to aerobic group. Resting Metabolic
Rate, as quoted above, went up in resistance group and went
significantly down in aerobics group.

Muscles will burn calories at rest, but only if you train them!

--
Andrzej Rosa

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-30 RCE napisa³(a):

"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.

As for metabolism changes due to exercise .... I don't know. Based on my
personal experience of the past 3+ months of dieting, daily cardiovascular
exercise and heavy (for me) weight lifting routines every other day that has
resulted in a 50 pound weight loss so far, I would guess my overall
metabolism has slowed. I base that assumption on the following:

My calorie intake requirement to "maintain" current weight has dropped from
over 4000 per day (at 260 lbs) to about 2500 per day (at 211 lbs) according
to the various BMI charts found on the web. I've recently experimented by
consuming over 2000 kcal a day for a week or so while still maintaining the
same exercise program and the weight loss has all but stopped.

Try doing full body workouts on your weight days. It should help you
by stimulating higher muscle mass overall, which then has to recover
between workouts. Limit the rest intervals too, if you are serious.
Additional muscle mass speeds up metabolism only if it was stimulated
by weight training. If you didn't build any additional muscle mass
(which is quite possible, taking in account that you lost so much
weight) you shouldn't expect any increase in you BMR. Still, you can
squeeze some increase from existing muscles by doing full body workouts.

The other indicator (I guess) that my metabolic rate has slowed is that my
resting heart rate has dropped from around 80 BPM to around 65 BPM, again
comparing the numbers at 260 lbs and 211 lbs respectively.

I wouldn't worry about that. You are getting in shape.

As to muscle mass ... I think it's too early to tell. I've definitely added
some mass ... my arms are a bit thicker with a little more muscle
definition, but I am far from being a Charles Atlas.

You can consider a maintenance phase. It should allow you to build
some extra muscles, which will show better once you cut down to your
target bodyfat percent.

--
Andrzej Rosa

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?

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

jack