If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
"Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message
... ["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia 2007-01-31 en napisał(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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-02-01 GaryG napisał(a): "Andrzej Rosa" wrote in message ... ["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.] Dnia 2007-01-31 en napisał(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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
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! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Haha! New Research Challenges Old Perceptions
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Haha! | Kate Dicey | Weightwatchers | 10 | July 8th, 2006 04:18 PM |
perceptions of weight | bob | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | February 2nd, 2004 04:30 PM |
Other people's perceptions | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 25 | December 31st, 2003 02:05 PM |
Physical Perceptions | April Goodwin-Smith | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 16 | October 11th, 2003 10:48 AM |