exercise unlikely to rev up your metabolism
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
interesting
<div>
(quadancer @ May 30 2009,2:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What about HIIT? I thought that was supposed to be "scientifically" proven to hypermaxiembelluize metabolism for the rest of the day, or whatever. Could it be that it's just more efficient timewise?</div>
thats what lyle also seems to agree on,apparently the effect of epoc after HIIT can be as little as 80cals throughout the day.
basicly its cals in versus cals out,so the exercise that burns the most cals (and the one you enjoy doing the best) is probably the one you should choose.
(quadancer @ May 30 2009,2:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What about HIIT? I thought that was supposed to be "scientifically" proven to hypermaxiembelluize metabolism for the rest of the day, or whatever. Could it be that it's just more efficient timewise?</div>
thats what lyle also seems to agree on,apparently the effect of epoc after HIIT can be as little as 80cals throughout the day.
basicly its cals in versus cals out,so the exercise that burns the most cals (and the one you enjoy doing the best) is probably the one you should choose.
from lyle's forum
Another argument that the superiority of interval training rests on is that it generates an exceptionally large post-workout calorie burn. In the research review Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption, I put this idea to rest. While the relative burn following high-intensity training may be larger, the total absolute contribution is still miniscule (partly because the total calorie burn of the average interval sessions is pretty small, even a larger PERCENTAGE burn doesn’t amount to much). In one study, following intervals, a whopping 35 some odd extra calories were burned. Yippee.
There is also the simple fact that, almost no matter how you cut it, the total calorie burn during a longer steady state bout will be in excess of whatever occurs from interval training. In the article Steady State vs. Interval Training and EPOC: Practical Application, I compared interval workouts to steady state workouts from my own training (calorie values based on numbers taken from my Powermeter equipped bike, a Bodybugg and my new Polar watch that estimates calorie burn). This is in addition to the fact that, for the same or lesser calorie burn, intervals are MUCH harder and interval training can’t be done daily. And since most trainees train more than a handful of time per week, this is a problem.
Now, while most of the arguments that intervals are typically based on appear to be bogus, there is the simple fact that, for many people, they seem to be more effective for fat loss (at least under certain circumstances). I examined this apparent disconnect between the research and the real-world in the next two blog pieces.
In Steady state vs. Interval Training: Explaining the Disconnect Part 1, I examined the now infamous Tremblay interval study and offered the potential of muscle gain (only relevant for beginners who aren’t lifting) and increased fat oxidation as potential mechanisms for increased fat loss. I’d point out again that that study only showed a fairly small total fat loss in the first place, certainly nothing to write home about.
In Steady state vs. Interval Training: Explaining the Disconnect Part 2, I examined the potential of the hormonal response, blunted appetite (probably the real reason intervals show up as superior in studies with no diet control), and the simple fact that believing in intervals may get people training hard for a damn change. The simple fact is that, given that most people train like wimps, if you get them to work harder for a change, good things usually happen.
In an article on Exercise Efficiency, I examined yet another commonly held belief about steady state exercise, that efficiency improves drastically, reducing calorie burn. Simply, this is dead wrong, changes in efficiency take years of grinding effort (Lance Armstrong improved his efficiency by 1 percent per year and it took him 3-6 hours per day on the bike to do it) and only exert small effects on calorie burn anyhow. Of course there is the simple fact that, even if folks are getting more efficient during steady state, the workload can simply be increased during exercise to counteract this.
In a research review, I examined Metabolic Adaptations to Short-term High-intensity Interval Training, looking at the adaptations to short-term interval training. That paper made it clear that, at least in untrained individuals, fairly low volumes of high intensity training can induce adaptations similar to much longer duration steady state programs. While intriguing to be sure, there is the simple fact that this training was being done in isolation, there is also the question of whether beginners can even sustain the intensities or durations of interval training, along with the question of what happens after the first 2-6 weeks and whether or not the adaptations keep occurring (I’d note here that studies in trained endurance athletes show that interval training stops having much of an effect after about three weeks).
In Steady State vs. Interval Training: Summing Up Part 1, I made the point that all of the interval training studies or what have you have always been done in isolation. No hardcore fat loss or low-carb diet, no weight training, just intervals. I raised the question of why people are uncritically assuming that interval training three days per week can simply be added to the rest of training (or diet) without looking at the program as a whole. Because this is really at the core of the problems I’m seeing. People are taking isolated aspects of training and throwing them together without consideration of the whole effect.
In Steady State vs. Interval Training: Summing Up Part 2, I examined the three ‘prongs’ of current fat loss methodology that I currently see being abused. Those are very low-carb diets, interval training and metabolic weight training. Folks seem intent on not only taking the research on each individual component out of context but throwing it together in the training blender and hoping it sticks. And that’s before trainees, brainwashed by the silly idea that only intervals are effective decide to train more than three times per week. Folks are trying to do intervals 3-5 times per week with full body weight training several times per week while eating zero carbohydrates. And they are getting destroyed.
And finally that brings me to today where I can wrap up this series and move on to other things. As it turns out, I had already addressed this issue in some detail the article Steady State and Interval Training: Part 2. It basically summarizes what I think about how to best incorporate both interval and steady state training into a proper program for different athletes and folks of different training status (e.g. beginners, intermediates, athletes, bodybuilders, etc).
This is also a topic that I look at in some detail in the new Stubborn Fat Solution book because. Two of the protocols use intevals for very specific reasons so I had to address how to integrate them with other aspects of training so that dieters wouldn’t nuke themselves.
So that’s it, about a month of constant commentary. I’m sure I pissed some people off. Especially those for whom selling intervals to the masses is their bottom line. Something tells me I won’t get invited to the inner circle parties anymore. Hopefully I made some folks think about the advice they’re giving or taking or how they are training on a day-in, day-out basis.
But just in case, nobody has paid attention to a word of this, or simply missed the point, I’d sum up most of this by asking the following question:
If the typical high level athlete typically only performs, on average, two very high-intensity days of training per week, what makes the general trainee (seeking fat loss or whatever) think that they can or should do more?
More importantly, what makes the gurus, with all of their supposed years in the trenches training people, think it’s a good idea or something that that they should recommend in the first place
Another argument that the superiority of interval training rests on is that it generates an exceptionally large post-workout calorie burn. In the research review Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption, I put this idea to rest. While the relative burn following high-intensity training may be larger, the total absolute contribution is still miniscule (partly because the total calorie burn of the average interval sessions is pretty small, even a larger PERCENTAGE burn doesn’t amount to much). In one study, following intervals, a whopping 35 some odd extra calories were burned. Yippee.
There is also the simple fact that, almost no matter how you cut it, the total calorie burn during a longer steady state bout will be in excess of whatever occurs from interval training. In the article Steady State vs. Interval Training and EPOC: Practical Application, I compared interval workouts to steady state workouts from my own training (calorie values based on numbers taken from my Powermeter equipped bike, a Bodybugg and my new Polar watch that estimates calorie burn). This is in addition to the fact that, for the same or lesser calorie burn, intervals are MUCH harder and interval training can’t be done daily. And since most trainees train more than a handful of time per week, this is a problem.
Now, while most of the arguments that intervals are typically based on appear to be bogus, there is the simple fact that, for many people, they seem to be more effective for fat loss (at least under certain circumstances). I examined this apparent disconnect between the research and the real-world in the next two blog pieces.
In Steady state vs. Interval Training: Explaining the Disconnect Part 1, I examined the now infamous Tremblay interval study and offered the potential of muscle gain (only relevant for beginners who aren’t lifting) and increased fat oxidation as potential mechanisms for increased fat loss. I’d point out again that that study only showed a fairly small total fat loss in the first place, certainly nothing to write home about.
In Steady state vs. Interval Training: Explaining the Disconnect Part 2, I examined the potential of the hormonal response, blunted appetite (probably the real reason intervals show up as superior in studies with no diet control), and the simple fact that believing in intervals may get people training hard for a damn change. The simple fact is that, given that most people train like wimps, if you get them to work harder for a change, good things usually happen.
In an article on Exercise Efficiency, I examined yet another commonly held belief about steady state exercise, that efficiency improves drastically, reducing calorie burn. Simply, this is dead wrong, changes in efficiency take years of grinding effort (Lance Armstrong improved his efficiency by 1 percent per year and it took him 3-6 hours per day on the bike to do it) and only exert small effects on calorie burn anyhow. Of course there is the simple fact that, even if folks are getting more efficient during steady state, the workload can simply be increased during exercise to counteract this.
In a research review, I examined Metabolic Adaptations to Short-term High-intensity Interval Training, looking at the adaptations to short-term interval training. That paper made it clear that, at least in untrained individuals, fairly low volumes of high intensity training can induce adaptations similar to much longer duration steady state programs. While intriguing to be sure, there is the simple fact that this training was being done in isolation, there is also the question of whether beginners can even sustain the intensities or durations of interval training, along with the question of what happens after the first 2-6 weeks and whether or not the adaptations keep occurring (I’d note here that studies in trained endurance athletes show that interval training stops having much of an effect after about three weeks).
In Steady State vs. Interval Training: Summing Up Part 1, I made the point that all of the interval training studies or what have you have always been done in isolation. No hardcore fat loss or low-carb diet, no weight training, just intervals. I raised the question of why people are uncritically assuming that interval training three days per week can simply be added to the rest of training (or diet) without looking at the program as a whole. Because this is really at the core of the problems I’m seeing. People are taking isolated aspects of training and throwing them together without consideration of the whole effect.
In Steady State vs. Interval Training: Summing Up Part 2, I examined the three ‘prongs’ of current fat loss methodology that I currently see being abused. Those are very low-carb diets, interval training and metabolic weight training. Folks seem intent on not only taking the research on each individual component out of context but throwing it together in the training blender and hoping it sticks. And that’s before trainees, brainwashed by the silly idea that only intervals are effective decide to train more than three times per week. Folks are trying to do intervals 3-5 times per week with full body weight training several times per week while eating zero carbohydrates. And they are getting destroyed.
And finally that brings me to today where I can wrap up this series and move on to other things. As it turns out, I had already addressed this issue in some detail the article Steady State and Interval Training: Part 2. It basically summarizes what I think about how to best incorporate both interval and steady state training into a proper program for different athletes and folks of different training status (e.g. beginners, intermediates, athletes, bodybuilders, etc).
This is also a topic that I look at in some detail in the new Stubborn Fat Solution book because. Two of the protocols use intevals for very specific reasons so I had to address how to integrate them with other aspects of training so that dieters wouldn’t nuke themselves.
So that’s it, about a month of constant commentary. I’m sure I pissed some people off. Especially those for whom selling intervals to the masses is their bottom line. Something tells me I won’t get invited to the inner circle parties anymore. Hopefully I made some folks think about the advice they’re giving or taking or how they are training on a day-in, day-out basis.
But just in case, nobody has paid attention to a word of this, or simply missed the point, I’d sum up most of this by asking the following question:
If the typical high level athlete typically only performs, on average, two very high-intensity days of training per week, what makes the general trainee (seeking fat loss or whatever) think that they can or should do more?
More importantly, what makes the gurus, with all of their supposed years in the trenches training people, think it’s a good idea or something that that they should recommend in the first place
QuantumPositron
New Member
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In Steady state vs. Interval Training: Explaining the Disconnect Part 2, I examined the potential of the hormonal response, blunted appetite (probably the real reason intervals show up as superior in studies with no diet control</div>
I've only read some of Lyle's stuff and he seems like a smart man. I take issue with him on this point: HIIT doesn't blunt your appetite - it makes you hungrier. Massively hungrier. I'm currently advising a guy who's competing in a local bodybuilding show this week. He's been doing HIIT for a while now and he experiences this huge increase in appetite as well.
A few years ago a lawyer, of all people, wrote a book on exercise. In it he detailed the hormonal response to interval training and showed how, from a hormonal point of view, it could be integrated into one's off days. There's the big picture years before Lyle. The book is the most heavily referenced lay-book on exercise I have ever seen. Hundreds of citations per chapter. Talk about doing your homework.
I've only read some of Lyle's stuff and he seems like a smart man. I take issue with him on this point: HIIT doesn't blunt your appetite - it makes you hungrier. Massively hungrier. I'm currently advising a guy who's competing in a local bodybuilding show this week. He's been doing HIIT for a while now and he experiences this huge increase in appetite as well.
A few years ago a lawyer, of all people, wrote a book on exercise. In it he detailed the hormonal response to interval training and showed how, from a hormonal point of view, it could be integrated into one's off days. There's the big picture years before Lyle. The book is the most heavily referenced lay-book on exercise I have ever seen. Hundreds of citations per chapter. Talk about doing your homework.
QuantumPositron
New Member
Someone did the math on the "muscles burn more calories than fat" thing? ZOMG! Exercise goes quantitative! "All Knowledge is Number" said Des Carte.
I don't find this interesting. I find it to be typical media obfuscation. Exercise has a plethora of benefits. Choose one: lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, greater mobility in old age, improved mood, improved immunity, improved insulin sensitivity, higher self-esteem...
Metabolism? Muscle only burns 8 more calories per day than fat? That almost sounds concise. Only it doesn't pan out that way in the real world. Exhibit A: A friend of mine gained 40 lbs, mostly muscle, in 5 months by eating 2,000 calories/day above maintenance. By this article's math he should only need 10 calories x 40 pounds of muscle = 400 calories extra per day. But he doesn't. He needs more. There is a word for this kind of horse---t: Simplism.
I don't find this interesting. I find it to be typical media obfuscation. Exercise has a plethora of benefits. Choose one: lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, greater mobility in old age, improved mood, improved immunity, improved insulin sensitivity, higher self-esteem...
Metabolism? Muscle only burns 8 more calories per day than fat? That almost sounds concise. Only it doesn't pan out that way in the real world. Exhibit A: A friend of mine gained 40 lbs, mostly muscle, in 5 months by eating 2,000 calories/day above maintenance. By this article's math he should only need 10 calories x 40 pounds of muscle = 400 calories extra per day. But he doesn't. He needs more. There is a word for this kind of horse---t: Simplism.
Right on QP. I dare say that one can find a scientifically valid experiment to confirm or refute any hypothesis or conclusion put forth.
Bottom line: Experiment and find out what works for you.
Bottom line: Experiment and find out what works for you.
MicroBerto
New Member
I am a paleo dieter following Mark Sisson's primal blueprint and have had massive success in losing fat via high-intensity, short-burst workouts.
I think we need to take a look at what our bodies were originally meant to do -- hunter/gather/scavenger style workouts (moving around slowly), but then bouts of incredibly high-intensity things such as sprinting to/from trouble and lifting heavy stuff.
This is what led us to survive during the more difficult times, and its what tunes our bodies to the best-chance-of-survival type body (ie lean mean and strong).
Additionally, diet is 80%+ of all results. Going paleo is when I really started dialing into my body's needs.
I don't have the time or patience for all this "chronic cardio" that people do which just makes them eat replacement calories rather than BUILD MUSCLE.
I think we need to take a look at what our bodies were originally meant to do -- hunter/gather/scavenger style workouts (moving around slowly), but then bouts of incredibly high-intensity things such as sprinting to/from trouble and lifting heavy stuff.
This is what led us to survive during the more difficult times, and its what tunes our bodies to the best-chance-of-survival type body (ie lean mean and strong).
Additionally, diet is 80%+ of all results. Going paleo is when I really started dialing into my body's needs.
I don't have the time or patience for all this "chronic cardio" that people do which just makes them eat replacement calories rather than BUILD MUSCLE.
<div>
(faz @ May 30 2009,4:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ May 30 2009,2:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What about HIIT? I thought that was supposed to be "scientifically" proven to hypermaxiembelluize metabolism for the rest of the day, or whatever. Could it be that it's just more efficient timewise?</div>
thats what lyle also seems to agree on,apparently the effect of epoc after HIIT can be as little as 80cals throughout the day.
basicly its cals in versus cals out,so the exercise that burns the most cals (and the one you enjoy doing the best) is probably the one you should choose.</div>
Ain't it amazing how simple so much of this turns out to be.
(faz @ May 30 2009,4:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ May 30 2009,2:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What about HIIT? I thought that was supposed to be "scientifically" proven to hypermaxiembelluize metabolism for the rest of the day, or whatever. Could it be that it's just more efficient timewise?</div>
thats what lyle also seems to agree on,apparently the effect of epoc after HIIT can be as little as 80cals throughout the day.
basicly its cals in versus cals out,so the exercise that burns the most cals (and the one you enjoy doing the best) is probably the one you should choose.</div>
Ain't it amazing how simple so much of this turns out to be.
Jill Barker, National Post
Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009
A new study suggests that the rate at which frequently exercised bodies burn calories while at rest is not significantly higher than the rate for less active people. - Yvonne Berg / National Post file photo
There is a long-held belief that exercise can turn you into a fat-burning machine. The idea is based on the suggestion that fat burning occurs not just during exercise but also long after your workout is over. That post-exercise burn, so goes the theory, is instrumental in losing unwanted weight.
As it turns out, however, like so many headlines touting weight-loss miracles, this one is more myth than fact.
"To our surprise, we have found that exercise has little, if any, effect on 24-hour fat oxidation [burning]," declared Edward Melanson, an exercise physiologist from the University of Colorado and lead author in an article from the April issue of Exercise and Sport Sciences Review.
Melanson used an interesting design to challenge the long-held belief that exercise enhances fat burning. Sixty-five candidates of varying fitness level and girth (well- trained and sedentary, lean and obese) all cycled at varied intensities until they burned 400 calories, after which they were monitored for 24 hours - a period that exceeds most other studies by several hours. All were monitored in closed quarters and were able to eat during the 24-hour period. None posted results that suggested enhanced fat burning during or after their workouts.
The study has caused quite a stir among fitness experts who now have to think twice before suggesting that exercise boosts metabolism in the short or long term.
Before putting your feet up in protest, keep in mind that this study in no way diminishes the value of regular exercise. Working up a sweat is still one of the best things you can do for your health. And regardless of the amount of fat you may or may not burn post-workout, there's no denying that a moving body burns more calories per minute than a sedentary one.
The message about fat burning has always been confusing for average exercisers who want to get rid of a little extra baggage. The oft-touted premise that certain forms of exercise or certain intensity levels during a workout can selectively burn off unwanted fat stores is without scientific merit.
In fact, our fixation on fat burning is misguided. When it comes to achieving your weight-loss goals, any calorie you burn is a good one - whether it be in the form of fat, carbohydrate or protein. As long as you burn more calories than you consume, the weight will come off.
As for the much ballyhooed post-exercise after-burn, well, let's just say the number of calories burned is less than impressive.
According to Pascal Imbreault, associate professor at the University of Ottawa's school of human kinetics, any exercise-related after-burn usually runs its course within 15 to 35 minutes of completing a workout. And while the actual number of calories expended during this time varies according to exercise intensity, duration and the body weight of the exerciser, he describes the resulting calorie burn to be "very minimal."
Imbreault suggests that exercise doesn't do much to crank up your metabolism over the long term, either, despite what the headlines in fitness magazines claim.
"Exercise is not that powerful," he said.
Also included in the list of overstated metabolic benefits is the popular belief that adding more muscle to your frame will increase the number of calories you burn at rest.
The idea that muscle is more metabolically active than fat, and therefore burns more calories, is not a fair representation of what really happens, Imbreault says. He claims that active muscle demands far more calories to maintain than muscle that isn't in use. He also suggests that during periods of rest, muscle and fat probably demand roughly the same amount of calories to sustain themselves.
Does that mean all those hours in the weight room were for naught? Relax. The benefits of added muscle don't diminish because you miscalculated how much they contribute toward your daily caloric expenditure. Maintaining and building muscle mass still reduces the risk of injury, makes the accomplishment of daily tasks easier, improves athletic performance and helps you rock a T-shirt.
As for exercise and its role in weight loss, the message couldn't be easier to understand: Use exercise to increase the number of calories you burn. Make smart food choices and trim down your portions to reduce the number of calories you consume. Do that more days than not, and you'll become a calorie-burning machine that slowly but steadily loses excess body weight.
As for fat burning, don't confuse it with the goal of trying to get rid of those love handles. Chipping away at excess flab doesn't require you to selectively burn fat over carbohydrates or protein. Creating a negative energy balance (burning more calories than you consume) is what eats away at fat stores, so get moving. Every calorie burned is one less stored - on the hips or anywhere else.
Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009
A new study suggests that the rate at which frequently exercised bodies burn calories while at rest is not significantly higher than the rate for less active people. - Yvonne Berg / National Post file photo
There is a long-held belief that exercise can turn you into a fat-burning machine. The idea is based on the suggestion that fat burning occurs not just during exercise but also long after your workout is over. That post-exercise burn, so goes the theory, is instrumental in losing unwanted weight.
As it turns out, however, like so many headlines touting weight-loss miracles, this one is more myth than fact.
"To our surprise, we have found that exercise has little, if any, effect on 24-hour fat oxidation [burning]," declared Edward Melanson, an exercise physiologist from the University of Colorado and lead author in an article from the April issue of Exercise and Sport Sciences Review.
Melanson used an interesting design to challenge the long-held belief that exercise enhances fat burning. Sixty-five candidates of varying fitness level and girth (well- trained and sedentary, lean and obese) all cycled at varied intensities until they burned 400 calories, after which they were monitored for 24 hours - a period that exceeds most other studies by several hours. All were monitored in closed quarters and were able to eat during the 24-hour period. None posted results that suggested enhanced fat burning during or after their workouts.
The study has caused quite a stir among fitness experts who now have to think twice before suggesting that exercise boosts metabolism in the short or long term.
Before putting your feet up in protest, keep in mind that this study in no way diminishes the value of regular exercise. Working up a sweat is still one of the best things you can do for your health. And regardless of the amount of fat you may or may not burn post-workout, there's no denying that a moving body burns more calories per minute than a sedentary one.
The message about fat burning has always been confusing for average exercisers who want to get rid of a little extra baggage. The oft-touted premise that certain forms of exercise or certain intensity levels during a workout can selectively burn off unwanted fat stores is without scientific merit.
In fact, our fixation on fat burning is misguided. When it comes to achieving your weight-loss goals, any calorie you burn is a good one - whether it be in the form of fat, carbohydrate or protein. As long as you burn more calories than you consume, the weight will come off.
As for the much ballyhooed post-exercise after-burn, well, let's just say the number of calories burned is less than impressive.
According to Pascal Imbreault, associate professor at the University of Ottawa's school of human kinetics, any exercise-related after-burn usually runs its course within 15 to 35 minutes of completing a workout. And while the actual number of calories expended during this time varies according to exercise intensity, duration and the body weight of the exerciser, he describes the resulting calorie burn to be "very minimal."
Imbreault suggests that exercise doesn't do much to crank up your metabolism over the long term, either, despite what the headlines in fitness magazines claim.
"Exercise is not that powerful," he said.
Also included in the list of overstated metabolic benefits is the popular belief that adding more muscle to your frame will increase the number of calories you burn at rest.
The idea that muscle is more metabolically active than fat, and therefore burns more calories, is not a fair representation of what really happens, Imbreault says. He claims that active muscle demands far more calories to maintain than muscle that isn't in use. He also suggests that during periods of rest, muscle and fat probably demand roughly the same amount of calories to sustain themselves.
Does that mean all those hours in the weight room were for naught? Relax. The benefits of added muscle don't diminish because you miscalculated how much they contribute toward your daily caloric expenditure. Maintaining and building muscle mass still reduces the risk of injury, makes the accomplishment of daily tasks easier, improves athletic performance and helps you rock a T-shirt.
As for exercise and its role in weight loss, the message couldn't be easier to understand: Use exercise to increase the number of calories you burn. Make smart food choices and trim down your portions to reduce the number of calories you consume. Do that more days than not, and you'll become a calorie-burning machine that slowly but steadily loses excess body weight.
As for fat burning, don't confuse it with the goal of trying to get rid of those love handles. Chipping away at excess flab doesn't require you to selectively burn fat over carbohydrates or protein. Creating a negative energy balance (burning more calories than you consume) is what eats away at fat stores, so get moving. Every calorie burned is one less stored - on the hips or anywhere else.
<div>
(QuantumPositron @ Jun. 12 2009,1:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Someone did the math on the "muscles burn more calories than fat" thing? ZOMG! Exercise goes quantitative! "All Knowledge is Number" said Des Carte.
I don't find this interesting. I find it to be typical media obfuscation. Exercise has a plethora of benefits. Choose one: lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, greater mobility in old age, improved mood, improved immunity, improved insulin sensitivity, higher self-esteem...
Metabolism? Muscle only burns 8 more calories per day than fat? That almost sounds concise. Only it doesn't pan out that way in the real world. Exhibit A: A friend of mine gained 40 lbs, mostly muscle, in 5 months by eating 2,000 calories/day above maintenance. By this article's math he should only need 10 calories x 40 pounds of muscle = 400 calories extra per day. But he doesn't. He needs more. There is a word for this kind of horse---t: Simplism.</div>
You forgot to consider the fact that a heavier bodyweight costs more to use, this is is not accounted for in how much muscle or fat burns per kg/lbs.
A 200 pounds person walking to the bus and up the stairs to his office will burn mmore calories than a 150 pound guy doing the same thing, despite the amount of muscle mass they have.
Although, a person with more muscle will probably do "heavier stuff" in everyday life and also lifte heavier weights when training, which also burns extra calories.
So yes, resting muscle burns a certain amount calories per day, but its a very low amount and it is only the calories the muscles spend in a resting state, not when they are working. A bigger muscle is capable fo spending more calories (not counting fiber composition and mitochondria content and such...)
(QuantumPositron @ Jun. 12 2009,1:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Someone did the math on the "muscles burn more calories than fat" thing? ZOMG! Exercise goes quantitative! "All Knowledge is Number" said Des Carte.
I don't find this interesting. I find it to be typical media obfuscation. Exercise has a plethora of benefits. Choose one: lower risk of heart disease and diabetes, greater mobility in old age, improved mood, improved immunity, improved insulin sensitivity, higher self-esteem...
Metabolism? Muscle only burns 8 more calories per day than fat? That almost sounds concise. Only it doesn't pan out that way in the real world. Exhibit A: A friend of mine gained 40 lbs, mostly muscle, in 5 months by eating 2,000 calories/day above maintenance. By this article's math he should only need 10 calories x 40 pounds of muscle = 400 calories extra per day. But he doesn't. He needs more. There is a word for this kind of horse---t: Simplism.</div>
You forgot to consider the fact that a heavier bodyweight costs more to use, this is is not accounted for in how much muscle or fat burns per kg/lbs.
A 200 pounds person walking to the bus and up the stairs to his office will burn mmore calories than a 150 pound guy doing the same thing, despite the amount of muscle mass they have.
Although, a person with more muscle will probably do "heavier stuff" in everyday life and also lifte heavier weights when training, which also burns extra calories.
So yes, resting muscle burns a certain amount calories per day, but its a very low amount and it is only the calories the muscles spend in a resting state, not when they are working. A bigger muscle is capable fo spending more calories (not counting fiber composition and mitochondria content and such...)