Top 10 myths about body fat

Losingthedamnweight

Just wanted to see what you all thought about this

http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/health-myths/10-body-fat-myths.htm

maxit

The old videos of various workouts from the 80s included in the "what happens to fat" video were very entertaining

TimothyFish

I love how it says that calories burned from fat compared to muscle is negligible and then says that for fat it is 2 calories per pound and muscle is 6 calories per pound. For a 200 pound person, that is a difference of 800 calories.

mburgess458

TimothyFish wrote: »

I love how it says that calories burned from fat compared to muscle is negligible and then says that for fat it is 2 calories per pound and muscle is 6 calories per pound. For a 200 pound person, that is a difference of 800 calories.

It's only 800 calories if you are comparing a 200 lb person at 100% bodyfat to a 200 lb person at 0% bodyfat.

I think the underlying point they were making is that adding muscle isn't easy. You're not going to add more than a few lbs of muscle a year and each lb only "buys" you 4 calories. So it helps but you're not going to be able to outrun eating too much by adding muscle.

TimothyFish

mburgess458 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

I love how it says that calories burned from fat compared to muscle is negligible and then says that for fat it is 2 calories per pound and muscle is 6 calories per pound. For a 200 pound person, that is a difference of 800 calories.

It's only 800 calories if you are comparing a 200 lb person at 100% bodyfat to a 200 lb person at 0% bodyfat.

I think the underlying point they were making is that adding muscle isn't easy. You're not going to add more than a few lbs of muscle a year and each lb only "buys" you 4 calories. So it helps but you're not going to be able to outrun eating too much by adding muscle.

He didn't say 100% bodyfat, he said 2 and 6 calories per body weight. I think it is clear that the author wasn't thinking when he said that is negligible.

Showcase_Brodown

TimothyFish wrote: »

mburgess458 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

I love how it says that calories burned from fat compared to muscle is negligible and then says that for fat it is 2 calories per pound and muscle is 6 calories per pound. For a 200 pound person, that is a difference of 800 calories.

It's only 800 calories if you are comparing a 200 lb person at 100% bodyfat to a 200 lb person at 0% bodyfat.

I think the underlying point they were making is that adding muscle isn't easy. You're not going to add more than a few lbs of muscle a year and each lb only "buys" you 4 calories. So it helps but you're not going to be able to outrun eating too much by adding muscle.

He didn't say 100% bodyfat, he said 2 and 6 calories per body weight. I think it is clear that the author wasn't thinking when he said that is negligible.

I guess I wouldn't call it "negligible" either, but when you compare it to some of the other figures that float around (ever heard 50? Yeah, me too), it really puts it in perspective.