Have you ever realized how much of the information that is published on exercise and fitness is total nonsense? Provably false?
My wife gets a couple women's fitness magazines every month, and every single issue has an article - highlighted on the front page - telling readers how they can get a flat stomach (aka, "washboard abs") through some sort of scientific exercise (or stretching) routine.
It is absolutely no secret that only a small percentage of the population can achieve a completely flat stomach, regardless of how much they starve themselves or exercise. If your ribcage and hip bones are not cooperative, you will have a belly regardless of anything you do.
And aerobic exercise? It continues to be sold everywhere as a panacea, even though the guy who "invented" it, Dr. Ken Cooper, no longer believes in it. Last I heard, he had concluded that interval training was actually better for you than long-term exercise with your heart in the "aerobic range."
And what about "building muscles"? If you are over 30 it just ain't happenin'. You can tone your muscles and starve yourself so that your muscles are visually defined, but building up inches on your chest, legs, biceps, etc., probably won't happen without illegal drugs (or Creatine, which creates a temporary inflation of muscle tissue).
The number of people who claim that you can lose weight by exercise is almost infinite, yet very few will tell you exactly how to do it, because most people simply don't have the time or willpower. You will NEVER lose weight by doing something 20 minutes a day, three times a week, which is the common mythology. (Weight loss is brought about by long-term exercise in the "fat burning" range - for most people that means walking at a very fast pace for hours at a time).
I believe that you can make yourself a little bit healthier through exercise with moderate increases in strength, flexibility, and endurance, but you can't overcome bad genes, and you certainly can't make any basic changes to your shape other than losing fat. You will have about as much luck trying to make yourself taller.
Does anybody have any PERSONAL EXPERIENCE otherwise? I'd be curious to know.
The Real Skinny About Exercise
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Are you going through all yer stuff from CSB and reposting it here?
I've noticed this has been addressed by you before...
I've noticed this has been addressed by you before...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
I lost about 20 pounds by having a shit job that caused me to dry heave just about every day, not have much of an appetite and kept me awake at night. Maybe I should write a book. 
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
I lost 30 pounds eating less and walking 30 minutes a day...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
While I agree with you Dave that most exercise fads are only good for ripping off the stupid and lazy, some of your other points do not stand up to examination.
It is possible to get muscle growth at any age, abet slower with increasing age, without drugs.
You can lose weight by increasing your exercise levels (admittedly not in the way some of these fads sell it), and long as your calorific intake does not increase along with it.
One point you miss is that regular, life long, exercise is a good way of maintaining health, weight and happiness levels.
It is possible to get muscle growth at any age, abet slower with increasing age, without drugs.
You can lose weight by increasing your exercise levels (admittedly not in the way some of these fads sell it), and long as your calorific intake does not increase along with it.
One point you miss is that regular, life long, exercise is a good way of maintaining health, weight and happiness levels.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Stress is great for weight loss - but wreaks havoc on your body in too many other ways.
You most certainly can build muscle past the age of 30, especially if you're already out of shape/lacking in muscle tone. It's true that one begins losing muscle as a natural part of the aging process at that age, but most of us with plenty of room to improve muscle tone are quite physiologically capable of so doing.
Part of what you wrote is self-contradictory. It's true, aerobic exercise is not the great thing once thought; interval training is optimal, and in fact, you CAN get very good results from a limited time period of such activity on a daily basis.
Of course, eating fewer calories than you expend is the absolute key to weight loss. Exercise is mostly about burning some of those calories, as well as increasing flexibility and endurance, both of which are critical especially in the aging process.
You most certainly can build muscle past the age of 30, especially if you're already out of shape/lacking in muscle tone. It's true that one begins losing muscle as a natural part of the aging process at that age, but most of us with plenty of room to improve muscle tone are quite physiologically capable of so doing.
Part of what you wrote is self-contradictory. It's true, aerobic exercise is not the great thing once thought; interval training is optimal, and in fact, you CAN get very good results from a limited time period of such activity on a daily basis.
Of course, eating fewer calories than you expend is the absolute key to weight loss. Exercise is mostly about burning some of those calories, as well as increasing flexibility and endurance, both of which are critical especially in the aging process.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
No, that is known to maintain your current weight, not decrease BFI.dgs49 wrote:You will NEVER lose weight by doing something 20 minutes a day, three times a week, which is the common mythology. .
Crossfit
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Don't I know it. Thankfully that job is 4 months in my rearview mirror and this new job is much less stressful. There is some stress but it's a different kind of stress if you catch my meaning.Stress is great for weight loss - but wreaks havoc on your body in too many other ways.
I was thinking of doing an infommercial advertising a coat rack as an excercise machine. Guaranteed to do exactly the same things that stationary bike/treadmill/whatever you bought last year is doing now.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Some further explanation:
Yes, I have posted similar thoughts elsewhere.
As a general proposition, weight loss is the result of taking in fewer calories than one burns. The illustration I always think of is, I have read a couple different places that a 150lb human burns an extra 100 calories by running one mile at a 6mph pace (10 minutes per mile). For discussion purposes, let's say that any vigorous exercise would burn a comparable number of calories per unit of time. Thus, running two miles (i.e., exercise vigorously for twenty minutes), three times per week, one can burn off an extra 2500 calories per month. A single pound is equal to 3500 calories. Therefore, if no additional calories are consumed (very unlikely), the subject will burn off 8-1/2 pounds per year. Less than a pound a month. In my opinion, this weight loss is so slight, and so theoretical, that you might as well say - as I do - that "You can't lose weight by exercising." The commercials that say you will lose 10 pounds per month (as Nordic Track used to claim) are basing it on an initial loss of water weight and the hope that the person buying the Nordic Track will go on a diet at the same time.
OTOH, I have seen people who seem to lose weight - or have dramatically improved on the results of a diet - by walking at a rapid pace (heart rate 90-110) for minimum one hour sessions, 5-7 times per week. This heart rate is sometimes described as the "fat burning zone," and I believe it. But again, the time commitment is much more than 3 x 20 minutes per week, which is the general standard.
Finally, one cannot totally disregard the "Atkins" factor. When you neurotically control your sugar and carbohydrate intake, CALORIES DON'T COUNT. You can lose significant amounts of weight while eating thousands of calories per day, provided those calories are comprised of protein and green vegetables, with no "white foods" whatsoever (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc). The downside of the Atkins diet is it plays havoc with your blood chemistry, and it CAN result in some discomfort associated with constipation. The other downside to an Atkins diet is that it is a "forever" diet. Once you go back to eating normally, you will immediately gain ten pounds, and probably continue to gain weight, even with a moderate diet.
As for MUSCLE GROWTH, I maintain that it is virtually impossible after age 30. It is possible to improve muscle tone - that is to say, take muscles that are "flabby" and make them firm; this is most obvious with people who have a "pot belly," and develop their abdominal muscles to reduce its size. You can also make yourself stronger by using certain lifting protocols; I have done that myself. But to take a particular muscle and make it larger (more "muscular") is virtually impossible. This is because adding muscle tissue requires human growth hormone and it involves, generally, increasing body mass (weight).
The two obvious test areas for my theory would be the circumference of the bicep/triceps area of the arm and the calf.
There is one exercise guru, Dr. Ellington Darden, who claims that people adopting his exercise and diet program often experience a combination of increased muscle mass and decreased fat, and he claims to be able to measure the percentage of fat and lean tissue to confirm his claims, but I'm a bit skeptical. His subjects lose a bit of weight and they look slimmer, but I think it's just a matter of toning the muscles that they already have.
In my decades of "hanging out" in gyms, I have never seen a single example of someone over 30 years old making themselves bigger and more muscular without taking some sort of steroids or creatine.
Does anyone reading this personally know of an older adult who has increased muscle mass through exercise? I'm basing what I write on my own personal experience and observations, but I could be wrong.
Yes, I have posted similar thoughts elsewhere.
As a general proposition, weight loss is the result of taking in fewer calories than one burns. The illustration I always think of is, I have read a couple different places that a 150lb human burns an extra 100 calories by running one mile at a 6mph pace (10 minutes per mile). For discussion purposes, let's say that any vigorous exercise would burn a comparable number of calories per unit of time. Thus, running two miles (i.e., exercise vigorously for twenty minutes), three times per week, one can burn off an extra 2500 calories per month. A single pound is equal to 3500 calories. Therefore, if no additional calories are consumed (very unlikely), the subject will burn off 8-1/2 pounds per year. Less than a pound a month. In my opinion, this weight loss is so slight, and so theoretical, that you might as well say - as I do - that "You can't lose weight by exercising." The commercials that say you will lose 10 pounds per month (as Nordic Track used to claim) are basing it on an initial loss of water weight and the hope that the person buying the Nordic Track will go on a diet at the same time.
OTOH, I have seen people who seem to lose weight - or have dramatically improved on the results of a diet - by walking at a rapid pace (heart rate 90-110) for minimum one hour sessions, 5-7 times per week. This heart rate is sometimes described as the "fat burning zone," and I believe it. But again, the time commitment is much more than 3 x 20 minutes per week, which is the general standard.
Finally, one cannot totally disregard the "Atkins" factor. When you neurotically control your sugar and carbohydrate intake, CALORIES DON'T COUNT. You can lose significant amounts of weight while eating thousands of calories per day, provided those calories are comprised of protein and green vegetables, with no "white foods" whatsoever (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc). The downside of the Atkins diet is it plays havoc with your blood chemistry, and it CAN result in some discomfort associated with constipation. The other downside to an Atkins diet is that it is a "forever" diet. Once you go back to eating normally, you will immediately gain ten pounds, and probably continue to gain weight, even with a moderate diet.
As for MUSCLE GROWTH, I maintain that it is virtually impossible after age 30. It is possible to improve muscle tone - that is to say, take muscles that are "flabby" and make them firm; this is most obvious with people who have a "pot belly," and develop their abdominal muscles to reduce its size. You can also make yourself stronger by using certain lifting protocols; I have done that myself. But to take a particular muscle and make it larger (more "muscular") is virtually impossible. This is because adding muscle tissue requires human growth hormone and it involves, generally, increasing body mass (weight).
The two obvious test areas for my theory would be the circumference of the bicep/triceps area of the arm and the calf.
There is one exercise guru, Dr. Ellington Darden, who claims that people adopting his exercise and diet program often experience a combination of increased muscle mass and decreased fat, and he claims to be able to measure the percentage of fat and lean tissue to confirm his claims, but I'm a bit skeptical. His subjects lose a bit of weight and they look slimmer, but I think it's just a matter of toning the muscles that they already have.
In my decades of "hanging out" in gyms, I have never seen a single example of someone over 30 years old making themselves bigger and more muscular without taking some sort of steroids or creatine.
Does anyone reading this personally know of an older adult who has increased muscle mass through exercise? I'm basing what I write on my own personal experience and observations, but I could be wrong.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
As for muscle gain. At 52 years old I am still able to gain muscle, when I feel the need, by varying my training and diet. In fact in the last year I have added 2 inches to my chest by a change in my upper body routine.The problem for Atkins though, is that the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet. So does the American Cancer Society; and the American Heart Association; and the Cleveland Clinic; and Johns Hopkins; and the American Kidney Fund; and the American College of Sports Medicine; and the National Institutes of Health.
In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet. As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations."
http://www.atkinsexposed.org/
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Agree.Finally, one cannot totally disregard the "Atkins" factor. When you neurotically control your sugar and carbohydrate intake, CALORIES DON'T COUNT. You can lose significant amounts of weight while eating thousands of calories per day, provided those calories are comprised of protein and green vegetables, with no "white foods" whatsoever (bread, pasta, potatoes, etc)
The Caveman or Paleolithic Model for Nutrition
Modern diets are ill suited for our genetic composition. Evolution has not kept pace with advances in agriculture and food processing resulting in a plague of health problems for modern man. Coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, obesity and psychological dysfunction have all been scientifically linked to a diet too high in refined or processed carbohydrate. Search "Google" for Paleolithic nutrition, or diet. The return is extensive, compelling, and fascinating. The Caveman model is perfectly consistent with the CrossFit prescription.
What Foods Should I Avoid?
Excessive consumption of high-glycemic carbohydrates is the primary culprit in nutritionally caused health problems. High glycemic carbohydrates are those that raise blood sugar too rapidly. They include rice, bread, candy, potato, sweets, sodas, and most processed carbohydrates. Processing can include bleaching, baking, grinding, and refining. Processing of carbohydrates greatly increases their glycemic index, a measure of their propensity to elevate blood sugar.
What is the Problem with High-Glycemic Carbohydrates?
The problem with high-glycemic carbohydrates is that they give an inordinate insulin response. Insulin is an essential hormone for life, yet acute, chronic elevation of insulin leads to hyperinsulinism, which has been positively linked to obesity, elevated cholesterol levels, blood pressure, mood dysfunction and a Pandora's box of disease and disability. Research "hyperinsulinism" on the Internet. There's a gold mine of information pertinent to your health available there. The CrossFit prescription is a low-glycemic diet and consequently severely blunts the insulin response.
Caloric Restriction and Longevity
Current research strongly supports the link between caloric restriction and an increased life expectancy. The incidence of cancers and heart disease sharply decline with a diet that is carefully limited in controlling caloric intake. “Caloric Restriction” is another fruitful area for Internet search. The CrossFit prescription is consistent with this research.
The CrossFit prescription allows a reduced caloric intake and yet still provides ample nutrition for rigorous activity.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Dear Gobster:
Your quote from "adkinsexposed" or whatever it is, is totally wrong. I would be curious to know who funds or sponsors that website.
Adkins, from the beginning, was roundly criticized for promoting diets loaded with cholesterol, fats, salt, and "too much" protein. There were predictions of catastrophic heart disease for people who adhered to his diet, and PCP's routinely warned people about going on the Adkins diet. NOBODY believed it was possible to lose the weight he claimed or, more pointedly, to ignore calorie count in a weight reduction program.
But guess what? They were all wrong. Millions of people have lost hundreds of tons of excess weight by using his calorie and cholesterol-loaded diets (I being one of them). There have been NO credible reports of heart problems, increased HBP, or any other significant medical problems associated with his diets. Otherwise, his clinics and businesses would have gone out of business years ago.
The reason why the medical community scorns Adkins is because he made them all look like fools by advancing successfully a diet that violated every nutritional principle and caution they had been preaching for decades.
His diet is also unfashionable because the self-appointed Health Police believe that vegetarian diets are the most healthful, and his meat-laden diet - with no negative health impacts - goes against their grain.
It is the same phenomenon that we see with "second-hand smoke*." Adkins diets are harmful because everyone knows it's harmful. Show me a single study that scientifically demonstrates any significant health problems caused by adhering to the Adkins diet.
My personal experience with the diet is that I go crazy craving bread, so I can't stick with it. Also, it constipates me to an extent that it is more bothersome than I want to deal with. But anyone who claims that you can't lose weight on it, or that it is medically harmful is full of shit.
______________________________________
+ Re: Second-hand smoke. 99% of the literature on second-hand smoke is published by people who either don't like smoke/smokers, or who have another axe to grind. The Federal Government likes to compile all these nonsense studies, note that they all say second-hand smoke is harmful (as though the question were susceptible to democratic polling), and say that the "proof" is that all the bogus studies are unanimous in their conclusions. The REAL studies - the ones that compare the health impacts to non-smokers who live in the same household as smokers, controlling for other factors, conclude that the actual harm of second-hand smoke is negligible.
Your quote from "adkinsexposed" or whatever it is, is totally wrong. I would be curious to know who funds or sponsors that website.
Adkins, from the beginning, was roundly criticized for promoting diets loaded with cholesterol, fats, salt, and "too much" protein. There were predictions of catastrophic heart disease for people who adhered to his diet, and PCP's routinely warned people about going on the Adkins diet. NOBODY believed it was possible to lose the weight he claimed or, more pointedly, to ignore calorie count in a weight reduction program.
But guess what? They were all wrong. Millions of people have lost hundreds of tons of excess weight by using his calorie and cholesterol-loaded diets (I being one of them). There have been NO credible reports of heart problems, increased HBP, or any other significant medical problems associated with his diets. Otherwise, his clinics and businesses would have gone out of business years ago.
The reason why the medical community scorns Adkins is because he made them all look like fools by advancing successfully a diet that violated every nutritional principle and caution they had been preaching for decades.
His diet is also unfashionable because the self-appointed Health Police believe that vegetarian diets are the most healthful, and his meat-laden diet - with no negative health impacts - goes against their grain.
It is the same phenomenon that we see with "second-hand smoke*." Adkins diets are harmful because everyone knows it's harmful. Show me a single study that scientifically demonstrates any significant health problems caused by adhering to the Adkins diet.
My personal experience with the diet is that I go crazy craving bread, so I can't stick with it. Also, it constipates me to an extent that it is more bothersome than I want to deal with. But anyone who claims that you can't lose weight on it, or that it is medically harmful is full of shit.
______________________________________
+ Re: Second-hand smoke. 99% of the literature on second-hand smoke is published by people who either don't like smoke/smokers, or who have another axe to grind. The Federal Government likes to compile all these nonsense studies, note that they all say second-hand smoke is harmful (as though the question were susceptible to democratic polling), and say that the "proof" is that all the bogus studies are unanimous in their conclusions. The REAL studies - the ones that compare the health impacts to non-smokers who live in the same household as smokers, controlling for other factors, conclude that the actual harm of second-hand smoke is negligible.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Atkins works in the same way as any restrictive diet works. Tell people they can only eat food from "Isle D" at the supermarket and they will lose weight.
And exactly like Atkins they will do themselves hard by being on a restrictive diet, and exactly like Atkins they will give up and regain the weight as restrictive diets are boring.
And exactly like Atkins they will do themselves hard by being on a restrictive diet, and exactly like Atkins they will give up and regain the weight as restrictive diets are boring.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
I read an article in Prevention magazine the other week in the surgeon's waiting room about a guy who did a restricted diet in which he only ate junk food - Twinkies and the like, for real.
He restricted his caloric intake, and lost quite a bit of weight - 30 lbs, I think.
He wanted to prove that it doesn't matter what you eat - only how much, in terms of caloric intake.
True enough, restrictive diets are impossible to stay on very long-term - but, I've been advised by more than one physician to use Atkins to drop weight if it works for me, as what's important is losing the weight, not necessarily how you get there. Once you get to a good weight, of course you have to employ long-term strategies for maintaining it. South Beach diet works pretty well for that, as it is a modified Atkins which allows you to add back a variety of foods over time and learn healthy eating habits in the process.
He restricted his caloric intake, and lost quite a bit of weight - 30 lbs, I think.
He wanted to prove that it doesn't matter what you eat - only how much, in terms of caloric intake.
True enough, restrictive diets are impossible to stay on very long-term - but, I've been advised by more than one physician to use Atkins to drop weight if it works for me, as what's important is losing the weight, not necessarily how you get there. Once you get to a good weight, of course you have to employ long-term strategies for maintaining it. South Beach diet works pretty well for that, as it is a modified Atkins which allows you to add back a variety of foods over time and learn healthy eating habits in the process.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
...unless of course Aisle D happens to be the chocolate cake and lard aisle...Gob wrote:Tell people they can only eat food from "Isle D" at the supermarket and they will lose weight.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
I have lost about 25lbs, about 2" off my waistline, and have noticeably more stamina. The only thing that has changed is that I took a very physical job.
ATKINS and some interesting information. (There was a follow-up 5 months later, but it won't load for me.)
ATKINS and some interesting information. (There was a follow-up 5 months later, but it won't load for me.)
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
You kidding? that chocolate cake will slide right out!Sean wrote:...unless of course Aisle D happens to be the chocolate cake and lard aisle...Gob wrote:Tell people they can only eat food from "Isle D" at the supermarket and they will lose weight.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
Calories actually do count. The difference is that when you eat high fat and protein you fill up faster and will take in less calories than if you constantly eat breads, cakes and other fluffy foods that don't fill you up but have high concentrations of calories.When you neurotically control your sugar and carbohydrate intake, CALORIES DON'T COUNT.
It's a simple formula that anybody who writes a book on diets will always attempt to complicate in order to sell an idea.
Re: The Real Skinny About Exercise
The diet advice from 40 years ago is the same today:
Don't eat too much.
Eat a balanced diet with a lot of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, greens and nuts.
Vegetarians live longer and are healthier. (less than 1/2 as much colon cancer for example)
The exercise advice is the same too:
Everybody needs some, several times a week. (to maintain weight, usually 45-60 min/day 6-7 days a week)
Bodies are different and respond to exercise/stress differently, so don't hurt yourself.
And when it comes to life expectancy and health luck is a big factor. This is about common sense, not virtue. Taking care of your body is a part of your obligation to yourself and to your community but no amount of 'virtue' earns you the right to a good outcome. Be thankful for the good things, they are a gift.
yrs,
rubato
Don't eat too much.
Eat a balanced diet with a lot of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, greens and nuts.
Vegetarians live longer and are healthier. (less than 1/2 as much colon cancer for example)
The exercise advice is the same too:
Everybody needs some, several times a week. (to maintain weight, usually 45-60 min/day 6-7 days a week)
Bodies are different and respond to exercise/stress differently, so don't hurt yourself.
And when it comes to life expectancy and health luck is a big factor. This is about common sense, not virtue. Taking care of your body is a part of your obligation to yourself and to your community but no amount of 'virtue' earns you the right to a good outcome. Be thankful for the good things, they are a gift.
yrs,
rubato