|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Back in the day, any more muscle than what you absolutely needed was inefficient. Any excess caloric intake was stored as fat to be burned in lean times.
So putting on a lot of muscle burns a lot more calories just because that's not what our bodies were designed to carry. Muscle is metabolically expensive which is why dieting alone doesn't work...the body will also break down muscle tissue to get at the stored 'fuel' in it. |
Putting on muscle hardly burns any more calories than fat, as was proven in the scientific study that I named and which you quoted but did not read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chonga wrote: |
| well that's considering all of the weight you put on was muscle. but as i said dont want to get into a nitpicking debate. |
No, that's considering the scientific study I posted to where energy expenditure was measured in muscle tissue. I don't see any flaws with this study, and talked to some people more knowledgeable than myself who considered this issue somewhat closed now. Some of the older literature people had read improperly took into account the caloric expenditure of activity in the muscle tissue.
Last edited by Dixon on Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cerberus wrote: |
hey Dixon you've gone from 140lb track athlete (aka skin and bones) to 210?
mostly muscle?? that would be a stupendous achievement. |
Yeah, and I'm probably at the same bodyfat percentage right now, or lower than I was when running the 1500m.
It would be an extraordinary achievement if it had not taken 8 years and the amount of time I invested in physical endeavours. Therefore I just consider it a disciplined achievement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Hard Truth |
|
|
| Ji wrote: |
If you don't want to look like everyone else, you don't get to eat and do what everyone else does.
If you just want to relatively healthy (15% BF for men / 20% BF for women), just exercising a few times a week and being mindful of your indulgences, isn't too hard to achieve. A lot of what's been said is true.
Outside of pharmaceutical aid or superb genetics, it's a lot of hard work, discipline, and consistency. Going from "everyone else" to "decent" is easy. Going from "decent" to "outstanding" is exponentially harder.
So if you want to get that shredded or hard body...your nutritional and training lifestyle isn't going to be remotely close to about 80% of people who "work out". |
very well stated. and unfortunately TRUE.
I'm probably a little better than decent now.. but the leap to outstanding is a big one indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:46 am Post subject: Re: Hard Truth |
|
|
| Ji wrote: |
If you don't want to look like everyone else, you don't get to eat and do what everyone else does.
If you just want to relatively healthy (15% BF for men / 20% BF for women), just exercising a few times a week and being mindful of your indulgences, isn't too hard to achieve. A lot of what's been said is true.
Outside of pharmaceutical aid or superb genetics, it's a lot of hard work, discipline, and consistency. Going from "everyone else" to "decent" is easy. Going from "decent" to "outstanding" is exponentially harder.
So if you want to get that shredded or hard body...your nutritional and training lifestyle isn't going to be remotely close to about 80% of people who "work out". |
Absolutely true. People of average genetics, and especially bad genetics, will always find it exceptionally difficult to get a great body barring drugs or magnificent advances in nutritional science. Sadly, most people have, by definition, average genetics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ji
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Hard Truth |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Absolutely true. People of average genetics, and especially bad genetics, will always find it exceptionally difficult to get a great body barring drugs or magnificent advances in nutritional science. Sadly, most people have, by definition, average genetics. |
There's nothing wrong with average. To be honest most of us will never reach our full potential. I just don't like it when other people try to tell people that you can look like _____ if you just do X, Y, Z.
I've done weight training for 8-9 years. I've been over 200+ since I was in 9th grade. At one point I was squatting over 450-lbs and had over an 18" neck. But...I was also wearing a pant size of 40. I've gone the other way and run a sub 13 minute, 2 mile run. In either scenario, I was far from cut. Just big.
It's only now that I'm becoming what most people would call in shape. What's ironic is that performance wise I'm not as strong nor as fast. My diet is not even remotely close to "normal" now and how I train in the gym looks a lot different.
Performance and strength don't necessary translate into aesthetic body recomposition. And body recompositions doesn't necessarily translate into performance and strength. I've found it's a weird juggling act. You can't have it all at once. Everything is in phases...unless you use drugs.
That's the hard truth of it all. No drugs. You make a choice. And then you keep plugging away not for days or weeks or months but years for most people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Hard Truth |
|
|
| Ji wrote: |
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Absolutely true. People of average genetics, and especially bad genetics, will always find it exceptionally difficult to get a great body barring drugs or magnificent advances in nutritional science. Sadly, most people have, by definition, average genetics. |
There's nothing wrong with average. To be honest most of us will never reach our full potential. I just don't like it when other people try to tell people that you can look like _____ if you just do X, Y, Z.
I've done weight training for 8-9 years. I've been over 200+ since I was in 9th grade. At one point I was squatting over 450-lbs and had over an 18" neck. But...I was also wearing a pant size of 40. I've gone the other way and run a sub 13 minute, 2 mile run. In either scenario, I was far from cut. Just big.
It's only now that I'm becoming what most people would call in shape. What's ironic is that performance wise I'm not as strong nor as fast. My diet is not even remotely close to "normal" now and how I train in the gym looks a lot different.
Performance and strength don't necessary translate into aesthetic body recomposition. And body recompositions doesn't necessarily translate into performance and strength. I've found it's a weird juggling act. You can't have it all at once. Everything is in phases...unless you use drugs.
That's the hard truth of it all. No drugs. You make a choice. And then you keep plugging away not for days or weeks or months but years for most people. |
this is interesting. You must have very a very endomorphic body shape and predispositions. There are actually guys out there who look quite fat but are still phenomenal athletes. Old guys may remember the Refrigerator Perry from the 85 Bears. Who's the younger Venus sister?
(though I agree with Whitlock in that she's eaten herself away from all time tennis greatness, and I saw this coming when she was merely 18 without any fat on her at all)
may I ask for my own curiosity (or feel free to PM me), just what diet changes and exercise changes you undertook to get you to look the way you do now?
I'm actually fairly meso myself, so I don't face this conundrum, but I'm interested nonetheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ji
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: No Secret |
|
|
At my heaviest I've sat around 245~250lbs. My average weight with solid cardio averaged 200~210lbs. I'm 5'11" and asian. I was never what anyone would classify as obese but not svelte either.
A serious injury forced me to re-evaluate my goals and necessitated a weight drop. Whereas before I was a strength first type of lifter, about 5 years ago my priority shifted to more generalized body recomposition.
For myself, I've found that high protein, low carb, moderate fat (primarily omega 3) with caloric deficit generates the greatest body recomp. My training weight on diet vs maintenance does not change only volume/frequency.
Even with severe caloric deficit, given sufficient protein and essential fats, and maintaining heavy load in the gym, I've been able to retain strength or seen only modest decrease despite generating significant weight loss. And once restored to maintenance strength, if lost, begins to return rapidly.
It's only over years of research and experimentation on myself that I've found my body's tendencies. Granted, if I could have pre-screened all the BS from brah science to flat out lies, I think I'd be a lot further along. But gaining wisdom and experience is always paid by time and failure.
As to the training component, I tend to favor free weights over machines and favor compound lifts over isolation work. At some point I'm sure I'll have to shift to more isolation work to bring up lagging muscle groups but honestly, I think most of us will never graduate to a lot of isolation work, unless there's a specific need. I favor chins, pull ups, squats, deadlifts, etc.
Currently, I'm continuing to cut body fat. What began as a frivolous bet about 5 months ago, has grown to a mission. I'd always thought I'd be skin and bones under 180lbs. I'm currently at 178lbs and while I've suffered some strength loss, in proportion to my weight loss it's been surprisingly minimal. Deadlifts seem to be holding steady at 275lbs for reps while the last few years my personal best was only about 300lbs for reps. This is remarkable considering I've generated over 25lbs of weight loss in the last 5 months.
So I'm curious to see at what point a full blown 6-pack will appear, on a body that's never even had a whiff of one in the past. I'm close though if strength begins to drop drastically, I'll have to put the experiment on hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yingwenlaoshi
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: ... location, location!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am watching the diet and exercising regularly, lifting and various cardio. I fell off the wagon food and beer wise Thursday and last night-not hungover, just feeling gross-added motivation to do that last set of bench reps tonight.
Keep up the good work-this thread is a positive motivation for all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Back in the day, any more muscle than what you absolutely needed was inefficient. Any excess caloric intake was stored as fat to be burned in lean times.
So putting on a lot of muscle burns a lot more calories just because that's not what our bodies were designed to carry. Muscle is metabolically expensive which is why dieting alone doesn't work...the body will also break down muscle tissue to get at the stored 'fuel' in it. |
Putting on muscle hardly burns any more calories than fat, as was proven in the scientific study that I named and which you quoted but did not read. |
A single study proves nothing. Other sources as noted already state differently.
Pretty much everything I've read from reputable sources states that a pound of muscle will burn 6 calories as opposed to a pound of fat which burns 2. That's 3 times greater.
Not only that, but more muscle can also elevate your BMR as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:55 am Post subject: Re: No Secret |
|
|
| Ji wrote: |
At my heaviest I've sat around 245~250lbs. My average weight with solid cardio averaged 200~210lbs. I'm 5'11" and asian. I was never what anyone would classify as obese but not svelte either.
A serious injury forced me to re-evaluate my goals and necessitated a weight drop. Whereas before I was a strength first type of lifter, about 5 years ago my priority shifted to more generalized body recomposition.
For myself, I've found that high protein, low carb, moderate fat (primarily omega 3) with caloric deficit generates the greatest body recomp. My training weight on diet vs maintenance does not change only volume/frequency.
Even with severe caloric deficit, given sufficient protein and essential fats, and maintaining heavy load in the gym, I've been able to retain strength or seen only modest decrease despite generating significant weight loss. And once restored to maintenance strength, if lost, begins to return rapidly.
It's only over years of research and experimentation on myself that I've found my body's tendencies. Granted, if I could have pre-screened all the BS from brah science to flat out lies, I think I'd be a lot further along. But gaining wisdom and experience is always paid by time and failure.
As to the training component, I tend to favor free weights over machines and favor compound lifts over isolation work. At some point I'm sure I'll have to shift to more isolation work to bring up lagging muscle groups but honestly, I think most of us will never graduate to a lot of isolation work, unless there's a specific need. I favor chins, pull ups, squats, deadlifts, etc.
Currently, I'm continuing to cut body fat. What began as a frivolous bet about 5 months ago, has grown to a mission. I'd always thought I'd be skin and bones under 180lbs. I'm currently at 178lbs and while I've suffered some strength loss, in proportion to my weight loss it's been surprisingly minimal. Deadlifts seem to be holding steady at 275lbs for reps while the last few years my personal best was only about 300lbs for reps. This is remarkable considering I've generated over 25lbs of weight loss in the last 5 months.
So I'm curious to see at what point a full blown 6-pack will appear, on a body that's never even had a whiff of one in the past. I'm close though if strength begins to drop drastically, I'll have to put the experiment on hold. |
fascinating. We seem to have similar proportions.
I'll PM you 
I'd like to develop the dedication for the same "mission" you've undertaken.
I can keep my weight between 200-205 by watching my food without being super strict about it and doing no cardio. I despise that crap.
I've never really been able to go much lower than 195... and while there I was using some Xenadrine (that stuff was great, one/two idiots OD and they ban it for everyone) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chonga
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah it's always good to get ideas from others with the same type of body/metabolism. I've never gotten into the whole science of everything, I just know what works for me and what doesn't.
It took over 10 years of weight, cardio, speed, plyo and some martial arts training to find out what I like to do that keeps me where I want to be. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to figure out what exactly works for your body. So do not be discouraged if you're dieting and training for 6 months only to find out that it's not working for you. Keep at it and you'll figure it out one day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
A single study proves nothing. |
The single study is the only authoritative source of information on this topic. In support of your claim that my scientific study is wrong, you have not presented anything. One study in human beings always trumps the bullshit pulled out of your ass such as your subjective opinion.
| Quote: |
| Other sources as noted already state differently. |
There have been no other scientific sources "noted."
| Quote: |
| Pretty much everything I've read from reputable sources states.... |
The only reputable sources which would accurately measure caloric expenditure from muscle tissue are scientific studies that are published in peer reviewed journals. The only reputable source cited in this thread is the one I posted. Have you read it?
| Quote: |
| ... that a pound of muscle will burn 6 calories as opposed to a pound of fat which burns 2. |
Is that what you mean by...
| you wrote: |
| So putting on a lot of muscle burns a lot more calories |
Exactly my point. 4 calories per day (according to your numbers) from one pound of pure muscle. That's jack squat; nothing. That's literally like a third of a peanut.
| Quote: |
| Not only that, but more muscle can also elevate your BMR as well. |
BMR is what we are talking about. That isn't an additional thing to add on to the conversation. Sadly, you are really lost here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
are those numbers on BMR correct?
a lb of muscle burns an extra four calories a day?
that's like a fly sitting on a sperm whale.
considering almost everything I've ever read touts the benefits of a faster BMR with added muscle, that makes it either the biggest crock I've ever heard or read, or that figure is a bit on the low side.
I don't expect it to make a significant difference, but certainly more than 4 cals a day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ji
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: Muscle and MBR |
|
|
Actually, muscle contributes very little to your metabolic rate expenditure. Over 50% of BMR is consumed by body functions and organs. While a high level of increased muscle mass will increase total calories expended in the long term, the biggest controllable component in the short term is the food you consume.
It's also why unless you're a world class athlete who can afford to train 8-10 hours a day, exercise alone does very little to affect body recomposition in the short run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
