| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:49 am Post subject: Nothing tastes as good as lean feels? |
 |
|
I'm quoting that famous ahemm philosopher.. Kate Moss.
She used skinny rather than lean. Skinny doesn't interest me. Lean does (implies muscles along with it)
it's a fascinating conundrum. I've been thinking about it a bit.
what do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chonga
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
or you can just eat what you want in moderation and work out.... that's what i do.
i think too many people get caught up with strictly diet to lose weight (ineffective since increasing lean muscle mass increases metabolism thus burning more calories throughout the day. so all those dieters losing weight are also losing muscle mass and basically reducing their resting metabolic rate). so i always say, eat what you want, just don't overdue it and make sure you take those calories into account when you work out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waynehead
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Location: Jongno
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've been dieting/exercising more lately, and it's worked, I've lost a little weight, but believe me...I miss my cheeseburgers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chonga wrote: |
| (ineffective since increasing lean muscle mass increases metabolism thus burning more calories throughout the day. so all those dieters losing weight are also losing muscle mass and basically reducing their resting metabolic rate). |
The most recent studies show that resting muscle tissue burns about 2-3 more calories per pound than fat. So in all, it does about two shits next to nothing to gain muscle for the sake of burning off calories.
As far as the OP, my view is that I'd rather trade a 10 for a 7 in taste right now, but feel about a 9 or 10 later in energy, and be a 9 or 10 in health long term. As opposed to going for a 10 in taste, but having an energy crash (about a 3) and poor long term health. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gibberish
Joined: 29 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some people like being lean more than a pizza for every meal, and vice versa. It just depends on what you want and what you want out of life. It's easy to say you'd give up all the junk food you ate to be in shape, but then again you also probably really loved to eat it at the time. Choose what you enjoy more.
Or, just get like, an hour of exercise every day and eat what you want, that's a better idea.
Personally, I agree with what "Kate Moss" says. I'm eating right and playing basketball for at least an hour a day. I've even got a daily photo blog where I'm showing my progress. I'm thinking a sweet time-lapse thing of my progress would be cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with the saying too. But being lean doesn't mean you have to deny yourself any good food. I make an effort to eat healthy food. It's healthy and it makes me feel good. I even think it taste very good, it just takes a bit longer to prepare and I don't feel quite as full as I would from a triple hamburger and a deep fried Mars bar. As long as most of my meals are healthy and I work out regularly, I think I can even eat one meal of unhealthy food a day, as long as I do it in moderation and exchange it with another meal instead of having it on top.
tl;dr: 2 healthy meals and 1 not so healthy meal but in moderation every day + regular exercise will keep you lean and let you eat tasty food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chonga
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
| chonga wrote: |
| (ineffective since increasing lean muscle mass increases metabolism thus burning more calories throughout the day. so all those dieters losing weight are also losing muscle mass and basically reducing their resting metabolic rate). |
The most recent studies show that resting muscle tissue burns about 2-3 more calories per pound than fat. So in all, it does about two shits next to nothing to gain muscle for the sake of burning off calories.
As far as the OP, my view is that I'd rather trade a 10 for a 7 in taste right now, but feel about a 9 or 10 later in energy, and be a 9 or 10 in health long term. As opposed to going for a 10 in taste, but having an energy crash (about a 3) and poor long term health. |
link?
dont mean to get into a dick measuring contest here but after doing some research, it depends on your source. some studie show 3lbs of muscle increasing resting metabolic rate by 135 calories per day. some claim an increase of only 10 calories per day per pound of muscle.
Last edited by chonga on Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:10 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty good about overall healthy eating. I also allow myself a free day now and again and pig out on anything I want. So long as I'm good on the other stuff, then it works.
but I've now hit a wall. Have made good progress to this point, but now it'll obviously take a regular load of cardio (which I despise doing) or the kind of super strictness on food which I may not be capable of.
Hence the conundrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dixon
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.
| Quote: |
| dont mean to get into a dick measuring contest here but after doing some research, it depends on your source. some studie show 3lbs of muscle increasing resting metabolic rate by 135 calories per day. some claim an increase of only 10 calories per day per pound of muscle. |
The study shows that 1lb of muscle costs about 6 calories per day. I wish what you were saying was true--but think of the logic of it--why would our bodies be so entirely inefficient? Evolution designed us to preserve calories.
My experience also doesn't fit well with the 'traditional web-lore" like the 135 calorie amount you noted. 45 calories per pound is too much. I started training as a 140lb track athlete and am now around 210 lbs. By those figures, I would have had to increase my caloric intake by 3150 over what my basal metabolic rate was back then, just to maintain my bodyweight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.
| Quote: |
| dont mean to get into a dick measuring contest here but after doing some research, it depends on your source. some studie show 3lbs of muscle increasing resting metabolic rate by 135 calories per day. some claim an increase of only 10 calories per day per pound of muscle. |
The study shows that 1lb of muscle costs about 6 calories per day. I wish what you were saying was true--but think of the logic of it--why would our bodies be so entirely inefficient? Evolution designed us to preserve calories.
My experience also doesn't fit well with the 'traditional web-lore" like the 135 calorie amount you noted. 45 calories per pound is too much. I started training as a 140lb track athlete and am now around 210 lbs. By those figures, I would have had to increase my caloric intake by 3150 over what my basal metabolic rate was back then, just to maintain my bodyweight. |
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.
And BMR changes over time (generally it gets slower with age).
When I was a teen I could eat in excess of 4000 calories a day. Now that I'm a fully grown adult I can gain on less than 3000 (a more than 25% drop). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chonga
Joined: 15 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dixon wrote: |
McClave SA, Snider HL. Dissecting the energy needs of the body. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7.
| Quote: |
| dont mean to get into a dick measuring contest here but after doing some research, it depends on your source. some studie show 3lbs of muscle increasing resting metabolic rate by 135 calories per day. some claim an increase of only 10 calories per day per pound of muscle. |
The study shows that 1lb of muscle costs about 6 calories per day. I wish what you were saying was true--but think of the logic of it--why would our bodies be so entirely inefficient? Evolution designed us to preserve calories.
My experience also doesn't fit well with the 'traditional web-lore" like the 135 calorie amount you noted. 45 calories per pound is too much. I started training as a 140lb track athlete and am now around 210 lbs. By those figures, I would have had to increase my caloric intake by 3150 over what my basal metabolic rate was back then, just to maintain my bodyweight. |
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.
in my own experience, going from 175lbs to 200 lbs my junior year of highschool, i noticed that my caloric intake had to be adjusted greatly to maintain the 200lbs. the +25lbs was mostly muscle but in the offseason when i would completely take a month off i'd drop back down to 185lbs if i didnt keep my calories up.
of course this is an ongoing debate and the source you mentioned is a reliable one, it isn't the end all conclusion of ongoing research. there have been more recent sources that claim otherwise as well.
either way, i don't think putting on a few pounds of muscle while reducing body fat is going to hurt anyone. strictly dieting to lose weight, to me, is still not as effective as weight training + moderation (eating what you want, in moderation). i've noticed not only a loss of energy but also loss of motivation to do things for those who are on a strict diet for the purposes of weight loss.
cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lean meat tastes good |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cerberus
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| lean meat tastes good |
YES!
hey Dixon you've gone from 140lb track athlete (aka skin and bones) to 210?
mostly muscle?? that would be a stupendous achievement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DorkothyParker
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's a very old thinspo/pro-ana quote (as good as "skinny" feels beinf the most common iteration).
I'm going with balance. I'd rather spend 8 or 9 hours at the gym each week than give up on eating what I like. I may not be Korea "thin", but I'm healthy.
It's good to watch what you eat. But having a burger and fries once a week probably won't be what kills you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ji
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:04 am Post subject: Hard Truth |
|
|
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". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
