P
Pbwalther
Guest
>You can lose weight by losing fat and you can lose weight by losing muscle.
>Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining anaerobic exercise
>levels wil result in excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is more
>metabolically expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass you
>are
>actually able to burn more calories than someone with less muscle.
Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories and that is dry weight.
Since muscle is about 66% water, a lb of muscle is about 500 calories. A lb
of fat is 3500 calories and fat tissue is virtually 100% fat. But you are
right, the metobolic requirements for maintaining a lb of fat tissue is
virtually 0 and just having a lb of muscle requires a certain expenditure of
calories per day. So if you do a little weight work to build muscle mass, even
though the weight lifting does not burn many calories, maintaining the muscle
will.
>Cycling
>is an aerobic activity. It does little to preserve muscle mass because it
>primarily recruits Type I fibres (endurance). I
Well, it depends on how hard you push. Have you looked at the legs on some
cyclists?
>It also doesn't burn as many
>calories as people think.
That depends on what you mean by "as people think".
In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the almost any other form
of exercise. Running, in a practical sense, does not burn much because most
runners can not run that long per day without either hurting themselves or
pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours per day easy.
The only two exercises that I know of that burn more calories per hour then
cycling are cross country skiing and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and
back muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less accessible then
cycling.
> You go for a ride, work like crazy to burn a few
>hundred calories and then put it straight back on again and more with a
>single Big Mac and fries.
A Big Mac, Fries and Big Soft Drink has enough calories in it for most people's
entire daily energy budget. That is an extremely high energy mean and as such
it is a terrible example.
> Cardio has its place in weight loss regimes but
>it's third in importance after diet and anaerobic exercise.
I think you are overestimating the benefits of anaerobic exercise but debating
it endlessly would be pointless.
In a functional sense, you are better off doing all three. I can not think of
any form of exercise regime that can not be sabotoged by a poor diet. So diet
is obviously the most important one.
>Reducing your calorific intake whilst not maintaining anaerobic exercise
>levels wil result in excessive muscle loss. Since muscle is more
>metabolically expensive than fat, by maintaining your muscle mass you
>are
>actually able to burn more calories than someone with less muscle.
Well, sort of. A lb of protein has about 1400 calories and that is dry weight.
Since muscle is about 66% water, a lb of muscle is about 500 calories. A lb
of fat is 3500 calories and fat tissue is virtually 100% fat. But you are
right, the metobolic requirements for maintaining a lb of fat tissue is
virtually 0 and just having a lb of muscle requires a certain expenditure of
calories per day. So if you do a little weight work to build muscle mass, even
though the weight lifting does not burn many calories, maintaining the muscle
will.
>Cycling
>is an aerobic activity. It does little to preserve muscle mass because it
>primarily recruits Type I fibres (endurance). I
Well, it depends on how hard you push. Have you looked at the legs on some
cyclists?
>It also doesn't burn as many
>calories as people think.
That depends on what you mean by "as people think".
In a practical sense cycling burns far more calories the almost any other form
of exercise. Running, in a practical sense, does not burn much because most
runners can not run that long per day without either hurting themselves or
pooping out. Cyclists can cycle for hours per day easy.
The only two exercises that I know of that burn more calories per hour then
cycling are cross country skiing and rowing (where you use your legs, arms and
back muscles). But both of those exercises are sort of less accessible then
cycling.
> You go for a ride, work like crazy to burn a few
>hundred calories and then put it straight back on again and more with a
>single Big Mac and fries.
A Big Mac, Fries and Big Soft Drink has enough calories in it for most people's
entire daily energy budget. That is an extremely high energy mean and as such
it is a terrible example.
> Cardio has its place in weight loss regimes but
>it's third in importance after diet and anaerobic exercise.
I think you are overestimating the benefits of anaerobic exercise but debating
it endlessly would be pointless.
In a functional sense, you are better off doing all three. I can not think of
any form of exercise regime that can not be sabotoged by a poor diet. So diet
is obviously the most important one.
