Re: 3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

Pbwalther

>You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing muscle.
>Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining anaerobic exercise
>levels wil result in excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is more
>metabolically expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass you

>are
>actually able to burn more calories than someone with less muscle.

Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories and that is dry weight.
Since muscle is about 66% water, a lb of muscle is about 500 calories. A lb
of fat is 3500 calories and fat tissue is virtually 100% fat. But you are
right, the metobolic requirements for maintaining a lb of fat tissue is
virtually 0 and just having a lb of muscle requires a certain expenditure of
calories per day. So if you do a little weight work to build muscle mass, even
though the weight lifting does not burn many calories, maintaining the muscle
will.

>Cycling
>is an aerobic activity. It does little to preserve muscle mass because it
>primarily recruits Type I fibres (endurance). I

Well, it depends on how hard you push. Have you looked at the legs on some
cyclists?

>It also doesn't burn as many
>calories as people think.

That depends on what you mean by "as people think".

In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the almost any other form
of exercise. Running, in a practical sense, does not burn much because most
runners can not run that long per day without either hurting themselves or
pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours per day easy.

The only two exercises that I know of that burn more calories per hour then
cycling are cross country skiing and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and
back muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less accessible then
cycling.
> You go for a ride, work like crazy to burn a few
>hundred calories and then put it straight back on again and more with a
>single Big Mac and fries.

A Big Mac, Fries and Big Soft Drink has enough calories in it for most people's
entire daily energy budget. That is an extremely high energy mean and as such
it is a terrible example.

> Cardio has its place in weight loss regimes but
>it's third in importance after diet and anaerobic exercise.

I think you are overestimating the benefits of anaerobic exercise but debating
it endlessly would be pointless.

In a functional sense, you are better off doing all three. I can not think of
any form of exercise regime that can not be sabotoged by a poor diet. So diet
is obviously the most important one.

Terry Morse

Pbwalther wrote:

> In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the almost any other form
> of exercise. Running, in a practical sense, does not burn much because most
> runners can not run that long per day without either hurting themselves or
> pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours per day easy.
>
> The only two exercises that I know of that burn more calories per hour then
> cycling are cross country skiing and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and
> back muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less accessible then
> cycling.

A trained cyclist easily can burn as many calories per hour as a
cross country skier, runner, swimmer, or rower. The VO2max of all
elite aerobic athletes, when adjusted for body size, are identical.

This was covered in a thread several weeks ago.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
[ 419,972' YTD...580,028' to go ]

David Kerber

In article <tmorse-4B472A.08250920052004@news.covad.net>,
tmorse@spamcop.net says...
> Pbwalther wrote:
>
> > In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the almost any other form
> > of exercise. Running, in a practical sense, does not burn much because most
> > runners can not run that long per day without either hurting themselves or
> > pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours per day easy.
> >
> > The only two exercises that I know of that burn more calories per hour then
> > cycling are cross country skiing and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and
> > back muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less accessible then
> > cycling.
>
> A trained cyclist easily can burn as many calories per hour as a
> cross country skier, runner, swimmer, or rower. The VO2max of all
> elite aerobic athletes, when adjusted for body size, are identical.

How do they manage that when they don't recruit as many muscles?


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

DRS

"Pbwalther" <pbwalther@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040520104242.13568.00001433@mb-m26.aol.com
>> You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing
>> muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining
>> anaerobic exercise levels wil result in excessive muscle loss.
>> Since muscle is more metabolically expensive than fat, by
>> maintaining your muscle mass you are
>> actually able to burn more calories than someone with less muscle.
>
> Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories and that is
> dry weight. Since muscle is about 66% water, a lb of muscle is about
> 500 calories. A lb of fat is 3500 calories and fat tissue is
> virtually 100% fat. But you are right, the metobolic requirements
> for maintaining a lb of fat tissue is virtually 0 and just having a
> lb of muscle requires a certain expenditure of calories per day. So
> if you do a little weight work to build muscle mass, even though the
> weight lifting does not burn many calories, maintaining the muscle
> will.

There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific burn at about
4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as metabolically
expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is 75kg @10% body fat and person B
is 75kg @20% body fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure will be
higher than person B's.

[...]

> In a functional sense, you are better off doing all three. I can not
> think of any form of exercise regime that can not be sabotoged by a
> poor diet. So diet is obviously the most important one.

Diet is absolutely the most important factor. And most people are lousy at
keeping track of what they actually eat.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Badger_South

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>"Pbwalther" <pbwalther@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040520104242.13568.00001433@mb-m26.aol.com
>>> You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing
>>> muscle. Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining
>>> anaerobic exercise levels wil result in excessive muscle loss.
>>> Since muscle is more metabolically expensive than fat, by
>>> maintaining your muscle mass you are
>>> actually able to burn more calories than someone with less muscle.
>>
>> Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories and that is
>> dry weight. Since muscle is about 66% water, a lb of muscle is about
>> 500 calories. A lb of fat is 3500 calories and fat tissue is
>> virtually 100% fat. But you are right, the metobolic requirements
>> for maintaining a lb of fat tissue is virtually 0 and just having a
>> lb of muscle requires a certain expenditure of calories per day. So
>> if you do a little weight work to build muscle mass, even though the
>> weight lifting does not burn many calories, maintaining the muscle
>> will.
>
>There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific burn at about
>4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as metabolically
>expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is 75kg @10% body fat and person B
>is 75kg @20% body fat person A's maintenance calorific expenditure will be
>higher than person B's.

Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!

-B

>
>[...]
>
>> In a functional sense, you are better off doing all three. I can not
>> think of any form of exercise regime that can not be sabotoged by a
>> poor diet. So diet is obviously the most important one.
>
>Diet is absolutely the most important factor. And most people are lousy at
>keeping track of what they actually eat.

DRS

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:

[...]

>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific burn at
>> about
>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as metabolically
>> expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is 75kg @10% body fat and
>> person B is 75kg @20% body fat person A's maintenance calorific
>> expenditure will be higher than person B's.
>
> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!

Oh, dear.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Badger_South

On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:13 +1000, "DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
>news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
>> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific burn at
>>> about
>>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as metabolically
>>> expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is 75kg @10% body fat and
>>> person B is 75kg @20% body fat person A's maintenance calorific
>>> expenditure will be higher than person B's.
>>
>> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!
>
>Oh, dear.

Er...minus the lesbian contingent and stuff. And I'm not implying you'd do
anything gay, like roller blade. <g>

-B

DRS

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
news:lgtpa09798ts08urtr1ek52hkr33p4o8f6@4ax.com
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:59:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Badger_South" <Badger@South.net> wrote in message
>> news:c5qpa0tlttsnppah5dq7id2muaqnj97qun@4ax.com
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2004 03:02:13 +1000, "DRS"
>>> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> There's no 'sort of' about it. Fat contributes to calorific burn
>>>> at about
>>>> 4.5kcal per kg per day. Muscle is about three times as
>>>> metabolically expensive as fat. Therefore, if person A is 75kg
>>>> @10% body fat and person B is 75kg @20% body fat person A's
>>>> maintenance calorific expenditure will be higher than person B's.
>>>
>>> Neat. You are sort of like a warm fuzzy version of Lyle!
>>
>> Oh, dear.
>
> Er...minus the lesbian contingent and stuff. And I'm not implying
> you'd do anything gay, like roller blade. <g>

Oh, it's not that stuff which bothers me. It's the warm and fuzzy bit. I'd
better started dusting off the "fucktard"s.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?