lifting weights to lose weight
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
didnt think it would cause so much agro
personaly i think she makes some good points,if having massive amounts of muscle used hundreds of cals a day yates/coleman etc wouldnt need to diet,the amount of muscle they carry the fat would just fall of them.
i think lyle talked about the amount of cals burned by gaining muscle,and instead of being in the hundreds per day it was more like double figures"basicly not much".
i have done just weights and i have done just cardio and i can tell you i lost more fat doing steady cardio than i did doing weights only.
as far as a brisk walk,i would say that would only lose you more fat if you where fasted when doing it,but steady-state- cardio at a good intensity that IMO would beat weights hands down.
as TOT said most people start lifting to gain muscle,which is correct but somewhere along the line we need to lose some fat,and most guys hate diets so cardio can help,i was thinking of getting a thread going about cardio and its benefits so keep a look out and we can discuss it a bit deeper.
personaly i think she makes some good points,if having massive amounts of muscle used hundreds of cals a day yates/coleman etc wouldnt need to diet,the amount of muscle they carry the fat would just fall of them.
i think lyle talked about the amount of cals burned by gaining muscle,and instead of being in the hundreds per day it was more like double figures"basicly not much".
i have done just weights and i have done just cardio and i can tell you i lost more fat doing steady cardio than i did doing weights only.
as far as a brisk walk,i would say that would only lose you more fat if you where fasted when doing it,but steady-state- cardio at a good intensity that IMO would beat weights hands down.
as TOT said most people start lifting to gain muscle,which is correct but somewhere along the line we need to lose some fat,and most guys hate diets so cardio can help,i was thinking of getting a thread going about cardio and its benefits so keep a look out and we can discuss it a bit deeper.
Well if you think about lifting weights to lose fat... it would put more of a drain on your recovery ability than doing cardio. When you are cutting, your recovery is already hampered. You don't want to run yourself into the ground.
I would be more likely to reduce volume and focus on maintaining my RMs rather than increasing frequency or volume. As long as you still hit the whole body twice a week, that should be more than sufficient to maintain. I hate cardio because it is boring, but I would do it if I decided to go on another cut.
I would be more likely to reduce volume and focus on maintaining my RMs rather than increasing frequency or volume. As long as you still hit the whole body twice a week, that should be more than sufficient to maintain. I hate cardio because it is boring, but I would do it if I decided to go on another cut.
<div>
(_tim @ Jun. 12 2007,15:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Calories in versus calories out using weight training, put simply. All the PT's I know are IFPP certified at minimum and each carry an independent nutritional cert whose letters I cannot remember, specifically so they can craft diets for people with special needs.
I wasn't saying that the individual writing in wasn't motivated - I'm saying that the author ASSUMES him and the rest of her audience to be so based on the biggest part of her response.</div>
Fair enough. Having toured many gyms recently because I may join one again, and seeing how people workout in cardio vs weight areas, I have to agree with her on practical grounds. Most people do not approach lifting weights with calorie burning in mind.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm sorry, xahrx, but I've seen this argument proven out quite a bit in the past two years. I'm not trying to come across with something impractical - quite the opposite. I said in my last post that there is a place for cardio for overall health. Part of that is weight loss in the grand scheme. Yes, you are right, cardio does burn fat. I just have a very big problem with her blanket logic that "light cardio" is superior to weight training for fat loss because most people won't put enough effort into a weight program to make as much of a difference. Bottom line, in case after case after case, I've seen people - some very close to me - lose a ton of weight using weight training after switching from a cardio-centric program. These folks weren't practicing the HST methodology - they were rather vanilla, very basic programs that required about the same exertion as a 30-minute cardio program. Her assertion that "light cardio" will burn more fat than weight training is just flat wrong.</div>
That wasn't her assertion though. Her assertion was based on a practical assessment, perhaps based on her own experience as you base yours on your experience. Yes, doing a circuit program or a a lot of squatting/deadlifting and pressing movements will burn a boat load of calories. The reality in my experience is that most people in gym weight rooms stick to isolation exercises on machines and take ridiculously long breaks between even light sets of exercises like preacher curls. With direction and some advice I think weight training is the way to go with cardio as a supplement. But, that's for people who know what they're doing and can and will stick to doing it right.
On practical ground I'd say she's right. She doesn't say anything that is wrong, she acknowledges that weight training, if done right as in avoiding nonsense like 20 rep curls with 5lb dumbbells, will burn calories. For most people that's irrelevant. Hop on a bike you know what you have to do and it's rather simple. So is going for a walk. Designing a weight workout to maximize calorie burn when so many people are still 'toning' and engaging in other nonsense activities, usually on the advice of their trainers, is a harder prospect for most I wiuld say.
Either way, disagree with her article as you will. What she says is not out of line with reality to the point it should warrant the sheer amazement it seems to have generated amongst so many here. You'd think Berardi popped in and told someone to lose weight they need to double their calorie intake by the responses. They were unwarranted. What she said is solid advice for most, she qualified her answer to allow for the calorie burning benefit of weight training when done right, allowing for the fact that if this person is motivated he/she can do their own research and make their own decision. The "OMG" and "Can you believe this ****" responses were a little much.
(_tim @ Jun. 12 2007,15:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Calories in versus calories out using weight training, put simply. All the PT's I know are IFPP certified at minimum and each carry an independent nutritional cert whose letters I cannot remember, specifically so they can craft diets for people with special needs.
I wasn't saying that the individual writing in wasn't motivated - I'm saying that the author ASSUMES him and the rest of her audience to be so based on the biggest part of her response.</div>
Fair enough. Having toured many gyms recently because I may join one again, and seeing how people workout in cardio vs weight areas, I have to agree with her on practical grounds. Most people do not approach lifting weights with calorie burning in mind.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm sorry, xahrx, but I've seen this argument proven out quite a bit in the past two years. I'm not trying to come across with something impractical - quite the opposite. I said in my last post that there is a place for cardio for overall health. Part of that is weight loss in the grand scheme. Yes, you are right, cardio does burn fat. I just have a very big problem with her blanket logic that "light cardio" is superior to weight training for fat loss because most people won't put enough effort into a weight program to make as much of a difference. Bottom line, in case after case after case, I've seen people - some very close to me - lose a ton of weight using weight training after switching from a cardio-centric program. These folks weren't practicing the HST methodology - they were rather vanilla, very basic programs that required about the same exertion as a 30-minute cardio program. Her assertion that "light cardio" will burn more fat than weight training is just flat wrong.</div>
That wasn't her assertion though. Her assertion was based on a practical assessment, perhaps based on her own experience as you base yours on your experience. Yes, doing a circuit program or a a lot of squatting/deadlifting and pressing movements will burn a boat load of calories. The reality in my experience is that most people in gym weight rooms stick to isolation exercises on machines and take ridiculously long breaks between even light sets of exercises like preacher curls. With direction and some advice I think weight training is the way to go with cardio as a supplement. But, that's for people who know what they're doing and can and will stick to doing it right.
On practical ground I'd say she's right. She doesn't say anything that is wrong, she acknowledges that weight training, if done right as in avoiding nonsense like 20 rep curls with 5lb dumbbells, will burn calories. For most people that's irrelevant. Hop on a bike you know what you have to do and it's rather simple. So is going for a walk. Designing a weight workout to maximize calorie burn when so many people are still 'toning' and engaging in other nonsense activities, usually on the advice of their trainers, is a harder prospect for most I wiuld say.
Either way, disagree with her article as you will. What she says is not out of line with reality to the point it should warrant the sheer amazement it seems to have generated amongst so many here. You'd think Berardi popped in and told someone to lose weight they need to double their calorie intake by the responses. They were unwarranted. What she said is solid advice for most, she qualified her answer to allow for the calorie burning benefit of weight training when done right, allowing for the fact that if this person is motivated he/she can do their own research and make their own decision. The "OMG" and "Can you believe this ****" responses were a little much.
_tim
Well-Known Member
I guess I'll throw my hat in one more time...
I consider brisk walking light cardio - that's just me. I based much of my reaction to the article on personal bias and what I've seen of late - and her statement in the beginnings of her response to the question that (paraphrased) "not much is known about the benefits of weight training". I tend to agree that a tailored program of weight training with a cardio supplement is best. That cardio supplement HAS to be something more than light cardio to do its job in the grand scheme - namely burning fat and increasing cardiac health.
If I've ever in the past had to kill a bit of fat, I change the way I work out such that there is more concurrent activity (for a more persistent caloric burn), and dependent on the program itself, I'll stick a 45 minute jog in there a couple times per week if it fits. Of late, my HST program has done the job quite well without anything but a very light cardio-based warmup - I don't even think I burn a tenth of my sugar content with my time on the treadmill.
Again - that's just me.
I personally didn't like her answer, but hope that my reaction didn't do anything but present my argument, right or wrong. It wasn't my intention to do anything but that.
I consider brisk walking light cardio - that's just me. I based much of my reaction to the article on personal bias and what I've seen of late - and her statement in the beginnings of her response to the question that (paraphrased) "not much is known about the benefits of weight training". I tend to agree that a tailored program of weight training with a cardio supplement is best. That cardio supplement HAS to be something more than light cardio to do its job in the grand scheme - namely burning fat and increasing cardiac health.
If I've ever in the past had to kill a bit of fat, I change the way I work out such that there is more concurrent activity (for a more persistent caloric burn), and dependent on the program itself, I'll stick a 45 minute jog in there a couple times per week if it fits. Of late, my HST program has done the job quite well without anything but a very light cardio-based warmup - I don't even think I burn a tenth of my sugar content with my time on the treadmill.
Again - that's just me.
I personally didn't like her answer, but hope that my reaction didn't do anything but present my argument, right or wrong. It wasn't my intention to do anything but that.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Jun. 12 2007,19:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll use her text again because it's so full of it:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle.</div>
Not while in a calorie deficit, which is safe to assume considering the goal is losing weight. Anyway, her point was that for every pouind of muscle added, which once more is hard if not impossible to do in a calorie deficit, you're not adding that much to BMR, and certainly not more than you would add to your overall calorie deficit if you did consistent cardio. Even light cardio like walking.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.</div>
Yes, it would burn about 500 - 1000 extra a day. Show me one natural trainee in a calorie deficit who can add 70lbs of muscle. The claim itself is ludicrious on its face and doesn't merit serious attention.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. </div>
This is pure nonsense. She is making a statement of general knowledge among the populace, not an absolute statement based on referenced peer reviewed studies for Christ's sake. And she is right, based on how most people train with weights in my experience, doing few if any major lifts, sticking to isolation machines, using low weight, and taking ridiculously long breaks between sets.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.</div>
I will be heartbroken if you ignore me. Trust me, it's my life to have you respond. I have no need to allude to your lack of intelligence, I think you take care of that all by yourself. Your take offs and interpretations of what she says are so far out of left field it's ridiculous. They are caracatures of what she actually said to suit your need to bash MSN and feel superior to someone. Your criticisms are baseless, and have the air about them as originating with someone who knows just enough about training to think they know everything, mess up reading what someone else wrote and criticize it for what it didn't say, when in fact you really should do more studying and learn what's practical and possible for most vs what's ideal and achievable by only a few.
(Martin Levac @ Jun. 12 2007,19:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll use her text again because it's so full of it:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle.</div>
Not while in a calorie deficit, which is safe to assume considering the goal is losing weight. Anyway, her point was that for every pouind of muscle added, which once more is hard if not impossible to do in a calorie deficit, you're not adding that much to BMR, and certainly not more than you would add to your overall calorie deficit if you did consistent cardio. Even light cardio like walking.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.</div>
Yes, it would burn about 500 - 1000 extra a day. Show me one natural trainee in a calorie deficit who can add 70lbs of muscle. The claim itself is ludicrious on its face and doesn't merit serious attention.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. </div>
This is pure nonsense. She is making a statement of general knowledge among the populace, not an absolute statement based on referenced peer reviewed studies for Christ's sake. And she is right, based on how most people train with weights in my experience, doing few if any major lifts, sticking to isolation machines, using low weight, and taking ridiculously long breaks between sets.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.</div>
I will be heartbroken if you ignore me. Trust me, it's my life to have you respond. I have no need to allude to your lack of intelligence, I think you take care of that all by yourself. Your take offs and interpretations of what she says are so far out of left field it's ridiculous. They are caracatures of what she actually said to suit your need to bash MSN and feel superior to someone. Your criticisms are baseless, and have the air about them as originating with someone who knows just enough about training to think they know everything, mess up reading what someone else wrote and criticize it for what it didn't say, when in fact you really should do more studying and learn what's practical and possible for most vs what's ideal and achievable by only a few.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,12:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Jun. 12 2007,19:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll use her text again because it's so full of it:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle.</div>
Not while in a calorie deficit, which is safe to assume considering the goal is losing weight. Anyway, her point was that for every pouind of muscle added, which once more is hard if not impossible to do in a calorie deficit, you're not adding that much to BMR, and certainly not more than you would add to your overall calorie deficit if you did consistent cardio. Even light cardio like walking.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.</div>
Yes, it would burn about 500 - 1000 extra a day. Show me one natural trainee in a calorie deficit who can add 70lbs of muscle. The claim itself is ludicrious on its face and doesn't merit serious attention.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. </div>
This is pure nonsense. She is making a statement of general knowledge among the populace, not an absolute statement based on referenced peer reviewed studies for Christ's sake. And she is right, based on how most people train with weights in my experience, doing few if any major lifts, sticking to isolation machines, using low weight, and taking ridiculously long breaks between sets.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.</div>
I will be heartbroken if you ignore me. Trust me, it's my life to have you respond. I have no need to allude to your lack of intelligence, I think you take care of that all by yourself. Your take offs and interpretations of what she says are so far out of left field it's ridiculous. They are caracatures of what she actually said to suit your need to bash MSN and feel superior to someone. Your criticisms are baseless, and have the air about them as originating with someone who knows just enough about training to think they know everything, mess up reading what someone else wrote and criticize it for what it didn't say, when in fact you really should do more studying and learn what's practical and possible for most vs what's ideal and achievable by only a few.</div>
The author of the article has no knowledge of weight training. Proof is in the text itself.
"There's a lot of confusion." She's an expert so she should know. I'm not an expert and I know that there is no confusion on the subject. I conclude that she does not know what she's talking about.
"Extensive training builds about 2-4 pounds of muscle." Facts prove otherwise. My first conclusion stays as is, she does not know what she's talking about.
"You should train with weights." She contradicts her own advice. Further proof she's ignorant of the subject.
The confusion she speaks of does not come from the general population, it comes directly from her.
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,12:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Jun. 12 2007,19:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'll use her text again because it's so full of it:
"In reality, one pound of muscle burns about seven to 15 calories a day, not 50, explains Dymphna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed."
One pound of muscle = 7-15 calories
Extensive weight training = 14-30 calories
Ergo extensive training = 2 pounds of muscle
The facts demonstrate that extensive weight training can and does allow one to accumulate a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle.</div>
Not while in a calorie deficit, which is safe to assume considering the goal is losing weight. Anyway, her point was that for every pouind of muscle added, which once more is hard if not impossible to do in a calorie deficit, you're not adding that much to BMR, and certainly not more than you would add to your overall calorie deficit if you did consistent cardio. Even light cardio like walking.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't remember which thread in this forum but I remember one guy who said that "after two years and 70 pounds later..." 70 pounds later, that's a whole lot more than 2 pounds of muscle. Even using her own flawed logic, 70 pounds of muscle would burn a whole lot more than 14-30 calories per day. Oh I don't know, how about we do some math, however flawed our starting data is. You go first.</div>
Yes, it would burn about 500 - 1000 extra a day. Show me one natural trainee in a calorie deficit who can add 70lbs of muscle. The claim itself is ludicrious on its face and doesn't merit serious attention.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I maintain that she knows nothing of weight training and by the same token does not have the ability to make the comparison between weight training and cardio training. I go back to her first paragraph in which she states that "there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you." Since I know otherwise, I conclude that she has ulterior motive for stating that or she just does not know. </div>
This is pure nonsense. She is making a statement of general knowledge among the populace, not an absolute statement based on referenced peer reviewed studies for Christ's sake. And she is right, based on how most people train with weights in my experience, doing few if any major lifts, sticking to isolation machines, using low weight, and taking ridiculously long breaks between sets.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The first thing she is wrong about is telling the fat dude that he's wrong about what he heard and instead should do cardio. So the dude, whom for all we know had just gotten the courage to go out and begin some sort of training, now is told he's an idiot and he should stop doing whatever he is doing and begin a different training which he probably contemplated but chose not to pursue. The fat dude, if he's smart, will disregard the stupid advice and continue to do what he wants. If he's stupid, he'll do whatever other people tell him to do. Yeah, I think that's how "smart" and "stupid" work. The fat dude is smart, the lady is stupid.
I don't know if he's a fat dude or a thin dude or any other kind of dude for that matter, maybe he's not a dude, maybe he's a dudette. Do you know? I presume that anybody reading that page for advice and asking questions about losing weight is a fat dude and I use the term to denote everybody who reads that page for advice without discrimination. She is speaking to "most people" and especially to beginners. For instance in this text: "Any movement burns calories, but weight training burns calories relatively slowly—especially when it’s a novice or recreational exerciser using relatively low weights and performing just a few sets." She's telling the dude, who's a beginner as he stated in his question, that he should not be a beginner if he wants to lift weights and lose fat. She's speaking to "most people", she's writing for "Diet & Fitness": She's speaking to fat dudes. Ergo, he's a fat dude.
"Ya, so doing that thing is bad mkay, especially since you just started doing it. It's better if you stop doing it and start doing something else, something I can dig myself. As a matter of fact, you should do something you don't want to do. Idiot, stupid fat dude. Have a nice day."
xahrx, alluding to my intelligence or my lack thereof is a fallacious argument. If you persist in that direction, I'll just have to ignore your arguments altogether which would not be constructive in my opinion. If you wish to know more, check "personal attack" on wikipedia.</div>
I will be heartbroken if you ignore me. Trust me, it's my life to have you respond. I have no need to allude to your lack of intelligence, I think you take care of that all by yourself. Your take offs and interpretations of what she says are so far out of left field it's ridiculous. They are caracatures of what she actually said to suit your need to bash MSN and feel superior to someone. Your criticisms are baseless, and have the air about them as originating with someone who knows just enough about training to think they know everything, mess up reading what someone else wrote and criticize it for what it didn't say, when in fact you really should do more studying and learn what's practical and possible for most vs what's ideal and achievable by only a few.</div>
The author of the article has no knowledge of weight training. Proof is in the text itself.
"There's a lot of confusion." She's an expert so she should know. I'm not an expert and I know that there is no confusion on the subject. I conclude that she does not know what she's talking about.
"Extensive training builds about 2-4 pounds of muscle." Facts prove otherwise. My first conclusion stays as is, she does not know what she's talking about.
"You should train with weights." She contradicts her own advice. Further proof she's ignorant of the subject.
The confusion she speaks of does not come from the general population, it comes directly from her.
<div>
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.
UFGatorDude30
New Member
Don't worry Tim, I won't let this make me pull a "J-Steel".
Again, I will state. And I do believe that anyone else will agree with me, that the only time she referred to any type of "confusion", was the very clear and obvious confusion, the person who sent in the question had. Clearly, they were confused by thinking that weight lifting was a more superior way to burn calories than cardio.
Q: I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? <------ Confusion Here
If you really wanted to twist and manipulate the statement, you could say, "Well, that's not true. If I did squats for a solid 3 hours, that would burn more calories than brisk walking for 30 minutes." Any non-argumentative person would have read this article and realized she was comparing an "average resistance workout" with an "average session of cardio". Sure, maybe your muscle doesn't burn exactly the amount of calories she stated. In fact, I'm sure EVERYONE's muscle burns calories at different rates. But I would take her numbers as probably a good average to measure from.
You are right, as an expert she should know. And guess what, she did!
She cleared up the "confusion" by explaining why cardio is more effective than weight training FOR BURNING CALORIES. Again, you'll have to control yourself and make sure you take these generally. (Not 3 hours of squats vs. 5 minutes of walking briskly)
So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed.
So that's what you've twisted into, "She states working out will only get you 2-4 pounds of muscle." I guess that would depend on how long you measure a "long stretch of time." Your right, if she is trying to claim that 10 years of training will only give you that all things equal, she would be pretty far off of what is possible by some. Quite honestly, 8 weeks is a pretty long time to me. I'd be thrilled to have 2-4 pounds of muscle within that time. Again, that's just me, as I'm an ecto. My point is, you can't use YOUR PERSONAL view of what is a long time and turn that into "This lady doesn't now what she's talking about".
You are bashing this lady as if she was set out to ruin your day... or as if because she works at MSN, she must be an idiot. You say she knows nothing about working out? I took an extra few seconds to read her bio, and she's got a double masters degree from Columbia. One in NUTRITION and one in PHYSIOLOGY. That isn't Nowhere State University, that's Columbia. I'd love to even be accepted to a school like that. Have you ever written a thesis, or even know what one is? She's written two! Even if she hasn't touched a weight in her entire life, I think she might know just a thing or two to be able to write this article. As she definitely knows the SCIENCE behind working out. Even if you don't admit looking at it, here is her bio.
http://health.msn.com/experts/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100124241
Hopefully some other people will check it out so they realize how ridiculous all of your claims are against this woman, and her article.
Again, I will state. And I do believe that anyone else will agree with me, that the only time she referred to any type of "confusion", was the very clear and obvious confusion, the person who sent in the question had. Clearly, they were confused by thinking that weight lifting was a more superior way to burn calories than cardio.
Q: I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? <------ Confusion Here
If you really wanted to twist and manipulate the statement, you could say, "Well, that's not true. If I did squats for a solid 3 hours, that would burn more calories than brisk walking for 30 minutes." Any non-argumentative person would have read this article and realized she was comparing an "average resistance workout" with an "average session of cardio". Sure, maybe your muscle doesn't burn exactly the amount of calories she stated. In fact, I'm sure EVERYONE's muscle burns calories at different rates. But I would take her numbers as probably a good average to measure from.
You are right, as an expert she should know. And guess what, she did!
So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed.
So that's what you've twisted into, "She states working out will only get you 2-4 pounds of muscle." I guess that would depend on how long you measure a "long stretch of time." Your right, if she is trying to claim that 10 years of training will only give you that all things equal, she would be pretty far off of what is possible by some. Quite honestly, 8 weeks is a pretty long time to me. I'd be thrilled to have 2-4 pounds of muscle within that time. Again, that's just me, as I'm an ecto. My point is, you can't use YOUR PERSONAL view of what is a long time and turn that into "This lady doesn't now what she's talking about".
You are bashing this lady as if she was set out to ruin your day... or as if because she works at MSN, she must be an idiot. You say she knows nothing about working out? I took an extra few seconds to read her bio, and she's got a double masters degree from Columbia. One in NUTRITION and one in PHYSIOLOGY. That isn't Nowhere State University, that's Columbia. I'd love to even be accepted to a school like that. Have you ever written a thesis, or even know what one is? She's written two! Even if she hasn't touched a weight in her entire life, I think she might know just a thing or two to be able to write this article. As she definitely knows the SCIENCE behind working out. Even if you don't admit looking at it, here is her bio.
http://health.msn.com/experts/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100124241
Hopefully some other people will check it out so they realize how ridiculous all of your claims are against this woman, and her article.
<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,16:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.</div>
Actually, you can ignore people on here now. The option is next to the person's posts, not in their profile or anything. I'm guessing there must be a section in your control panel to remove people from ignore, but I've never removed anyone, so...
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,16:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.</div>
Actually, you can ignore people on here now. The option is next to the person's posts, not in their profile or anything. I'm guessing there must be a section in your control panel to remove people from ignore, but I've never removed anyone, so...
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(UFGatorDude30 @ Jun. 13 2007,16:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Don't worry Tim, I won't let this make me pull a "J-Steel".
Again, I will state. And I do believe that anyone else will agree with me, that the only time she referred to any type of "confusion", was the very clear and obvious confusion, the person who sent in the question had. Clearly, they were confused by thinking that weight lifting was a more superior way to burn calories than cardio.
Q: I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? <------ Confusion Here
If you really wanted to twist and manipulate the statement, you could say, "Well, that's not true. If I did squats for a solid 3 hours, that would burn more calories than brisk walking for 30 minutes." Any non-argumentative person would have read this article and realized she was comparing an "average resistance workout" with an "average session of cardio". Sure, maybe your muscle doesn't burn exactly the amount of calories she stated. In fact, I'm sure EVERYONE's muscle burns calories at different rates. But I would take her numbers as probably a good average to measure from.
You are right, as an expert she should know. And guess what, she did!
She cleared up the "confusion" by explaining why cardio is more effective than weight training FOR BURNING CALORIES. Again, you'll have to control yourself and make sure you take these generally. (Not 3 hours of squats vs. 5 minutes of walking briskly)
So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed.
So that's what you've twisted into, "She states working out will only get you 2-4 pounds of muscle." I guess that would depend on how long you measure a "long stretch of time." Your right, if she is trying to claim that 10 years of training will only give you that all things equal, she would be pretty far off of what is possible by some. Quite honestly, 8 weeks is a pretty long time to me. I'd be thrilled to have 2-4 pounds of muscle within that time. Again, that's just me, as I'm an ecto. My point is, you can't use YOUR PERSONAL view of what is a long time and turn that into "This lady doesn't now what she's talking about".
You are bashing this lady as if she was set out to ruin your day... or as if because she works at MSN, she must be an idiot. You say she knows nothing about working out? I took an extra few seconds to read her bio, and she's got a double masters degree from Columbia. One in NUTRITION and one in PHYSIOLOGY. That isn't Nowhere State University, that's Columbia. I'd love to even be accepted to a school like that. Have you ever written a thesis, or even know what one is? She's written two! Even if she hasn't touched a weight in her entire life, I think she might know just a thing or two to be able to write this article. As she definitely knows the SCIENCE behind working out. Even if you don't admit looking at it, here is her bio.
http://health.msn.com/experts/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100124241
Hopefully some other people will check it out so they realize how ridiculous all of your claims are against this woman, and her article.</div>
It's not the reputation that validates the claim, it's the claim's validity that makes the reputation. Checking out her bio will only tell me what she's done before having written that article. It will not, for instance, validate any claim she made within the article itself. I can make any claim I want and appear as ridiculous as I want, she does not have that freedom. It's not my responsibility to demontrate anything but it certainly is her responsibility to live up to her reputation of expert. She has not done that, in fact she's done the contrary.
She is paid to exercise her expertise on the subject of "Diet & Fitness". Instead, by starting with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training", she demonstrated her lack thereof. All of this in spite of her reputation.
(UFGatorDude30 @ Jun. 13 2007,16:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Don't worry Tim, I won't let this make me pull a "J-Steel".
Again, I will state. And I do believe that anyone else will agree with me, that the only time she referred to any type of "confusion", was the very clear and obvious confusion, the person who sent in the question had. Clearly, they were confused by thinking that weight lifting was a more superior way to burn calories than cardio.
Q: I started lifting weights because I heard you can burn more calories from lifting than from doing cardio. Is this true? <------ Confusion Here
If you really wanted to twist and manipulate the statement, you could say, "Well, that's not true. If I did squats for a solid 3 hours, that would burn more calories than brisk walking for 30 minutes." Any non-argumentative person would have read this article and realized she was comparing an "average resistance workout" with an "average session of cardio". Sure, maybe your muscle doesn't burn exactly the amount of calories she stated. In fact, I'm sure EVERYONE's muscle burns calories at different rates. But I would take her numbers as probably a good average to measure from.
You are right, as an expert she should know. And guess what, she did!
So, if a person has managed to stick to a program lifting progressively heavier weights for a long enough stretch of time, they may accumulate enough extra muscle to boost their metabolism by about 14 to 30 calories a day — not several hundred, as is often claimed.
So that's what you've twisted into, "She states working out will only get you 2-4 pounds of muscle." I guess that would depend on how long you measure a "long stretch of time." Your right, if she is trying to claim that 10 years of training will only give you that all things equal, she would be pretty far off of what is possible by some. Quite honestly, 8 weeks is a pretty long time to me. I'd be thrilled to have 2-4 pounds of muscle within that time. Again, that's just me, as I'm an ecto. My point is, you can't use YOUR PERSONAL view of what is a long time and turn that into "This lady doesn't now what she's talking about".
You are bashing this lady as if she was set out to ruin your day... or as if because she works at MSN, she must be an idiot. You say she knows nothing about working out? I took an extra few seconds to read her bio, and she's got a double masters degree from Columbia. One in NUTRITION and one in PHYSIOLOGY. That isn't Nowhere State University, that's Columbia. I'd love to even be accepted to a school like that. Have you ever written a thesis, or even know what one is? She's written two! Even if she hasn't touched a weight in her entire life, I think she might know just a thing or two to be able to write this article. As she definitely knows the SCIENCE behind working out. Even if you don't admit looking at it, here is her bio.
http://health.msn.com/experts/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100124241
Hopefully some other people will check it out so they realize how ridiculous all of your claims are against this woman, and her article.</div>
It's not the reputation that validates the claim, it's the claim's validity that makes the reputation. Checking out her bio will only tell me what she's done before having written that article. It will not, for instance, validate any claim she made within the article itself. I can make any claim I want and appear as ridiculous as I want, she does not have that freedom. It's not my responsibility to demontrate anything but it certainly is her responsibility to live up to her reputation of expert. She has not done that, in fact she's done the contrary.
She is paid to exercise her expertise on the subject of "Diet & Fitness". Instead, by starting with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training", she demonstrated her lack thereof. All of this in spite of her reputation.
UFGatorDude30
New Member
Alright this is my last one, I promise lol.
Again, you've just taken something out of context. No, her response did NOT start with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training". That's what YOU said it started with.
It started with: There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you.
There is confusion. Why do you insist that this statement is so far from the truth. The person ASKING the question thought weight lifting burns more calories than cardio. As long as you read that as a general statement, as most people do, THAT IS A CONFUSION. Therefore, if you think lifting weights can burn more fat than the same time spent doing cardio, then there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. Sheeeeeeeesh, ok I give up after that one lol.
Again, you've just taken something out of context. No, her response did NOT start with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training". That's what YOU said it started with.
It started with: There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you.
There is confusion. Why do you insist that this statement is so far from the truth. The person ASKING the question thought weight lifting burns more calories than cardio. As long as you read that as a general statement, as most people do, THAT IS A CONFUSION. Therefore, if you think lifting weights can burn more fat than the same time spent doing cardio, then there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. Sheeeeeeeesh, ok I give up after that one lol.
stevejones
Member
Interesting.....doing LOADS of light weight dumbbell curls is one of the things I've been doing for cardio since breaking the leg. It's not working !
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(UFGatorDude30 @ Jun. 13 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Alright this is my last one, I promise lol.
Again, you've just taken something out of context. No, her response did NOT start with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training". That's what YOU said it started with.
It started with: There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you.
There is confusion. Why do you insist that this statement is so far from the truth. The person ASKING the question thought weight lifting burns more calories than cardio. As long as you read that as a general statement, as most people do, THAT IS A CONFUSION. Therefore, if you think lifting weights can burn more fat than the same time spent doing cardio, then there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. Sheeeeeeeesh, ok I give up after that one lol.</div>
So I took it out of context. Which context? The one you just explaned to me or the one I explaned to you earlier? Neither of which she explaned herself. Perhaps her article is open to a wide range of interpretations. This thread is a good demonstration of different interpretations indeed. Since this is the case, I'll conclude that her article lacks a certain expertise, a little clarity, a little context. And from this conclusion, I conclude further that she still does not know what she's talking about.
The logic is simple, had she known what she was talking about, she'd have written the article differently and this discussion would have gone a very different way. I'd have found myself agreeing with it, perhaps.
Furthermore, the person asking the question was not confused, it was very clear that he wanted to know if what he heard was true. After having read the article, I'm certain that he is now very confused about weight training and what it can do for him. I maintain that the any confusion there was comes directly from her.
For the sake of exactitude, I did c&p her statement as is in an earlier post. But for that post where I modified her statement, I did so for the sake of clarity of my arguments. Don't let discrepancies get in the way of a good discussion.
(UFGatorDude30 @ Jun. 13 2007,17:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Alright this is my last one, I promise lol.
Again, you've just taken something out of context. No, her response did NOT start with "there is a lot of confusion about weight training". That's what YOU said it started with.
It started with: There’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you.
There is confusion. Why do you insist that this statement is so far from the truth. The person ASKING the question thought weight lifting burns more calories than cardio. As long as you read that as a general statement, as most people do, THAT IS A CONFUSION. Therefore, if you think lifting weights can burn more fat than the same time spent doing cardio, then there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what lifting weights can do for you. Sheeeeeeeesh, ok I give up after that one lol.</div>
So I took it out of context. Which context? The one you just explaned to me or the one I explaned to you earlier? Neither of which she explaned herself. Perhaps her article is open to a wide range of interpretations. This thread is a good demonstration of different interpretations indeed. Since this is the case, I'll conclude that her article lacks a certain expertise, a little clarity, a little context. And from this conclusion, I conclude further that she still does not know what she's talking about.
The logic is simple, had she known what she was talking about, she'd have written the article differently and this discussion would have gone a very different way. I'd have found myself agreeing with it, perhaps.
Furthermore, the person asking the question was not confused, it was very clear that he wanted to know if what he heard was true. After having read the article, I'm certain that he is now very confused about weight training and what it can do for him. I maintain that the any confusion there was comes directly from her.
For the sake of exactitude, I did c&p her statement as is in an earlier post. But for that post where I modified her statement, I did so for the sake of clarity of my arguments. Don't let discrepancies get in the way of a good discussion.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jun. 13 2007,16:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,16:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.</div>
Actually, you can ignore people on here now. The option is next to the person's posts, not in their profile or anything. I'm guessing there must be a section in your control panel to remove people from ignore, but I've never removed anyone, so...</div>
Gracias.
(Totentanz @ Jun. 13 2007,16:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,16:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(_tim @ Jun. 13 2007,12:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Easy, guys - let opinions be opinions. Let's not create another "Rookie Question" thread.</div>
Hell, I already said everything I wanted to. If ML wants to keep this nonsense going, let him have at it for all I care. He's blatantly and frighteningly wrong and it's sad to see this kind of BB.com nonsense here. I only wish this forum had ignore lists. But I guess the plus of this forum was that, up until now, I'd never considered using one here.</div>
Actually, you can ignore people on here now. The option is next to the person's posts, not in their profile or anything. I'm guessing there must be a section in your control panel to remove people from ignore, but I've never removed anyone, so...</div>
Gracias.