Fitness Myths!

I dont know about the other myths, but I will have to disagree with the one about walking. I have lost almost all of my 100+ pounds with watching my calories and doing a lot of walking

When I started out I was pretty unfit, so walking was a great way to start. If you're very heavy then you're bound to be burning a few calories just moving your body about, even if it's "only" walking.

This

I started out just walking. Now I have a balanced routine that includes both strength and cardio exercises. I understand that diet is the single most important aspect of losing weight. And that you're not going to eat a giant pizza and walk it off that afternoon. But, to say that walking is useless is absurd. Those that have led a sedentery lifestyle need to transition from sitting on the couch to moving on a regular basis. A morbidly obese person isn't going to jump up one day and start pounding it out with heavy weights and miles of running, It's much more likely that they will start slowly with something simple like walking and add to their routine as they adjust to the activity level.

Perhaps the target audience of the Shape article is for people that are already physically fit.

No where in there did it say walking was useless. The point is that walking alone is not enough and that is true. You cant walk off a bad diet. There is no reason to see this as an attack on walking or those that do it.

Not saying it was an attack. But it does say that 'noticeable weight loss' is not normally achieved by just walking...and mine have definitely been noticeable.

5. Myth: You’ll burn more fat on an empty stomach.
Reality: The body torches about the same amount of flab whether or not you nosh before a workout, Greenspan says. But your body also needs fuel in order to perform at its best, build muscle, and burn calories, so you should always eat something light about 30 to 45 minutes before exercise such as a protein shake, yogurt, or a piece of whole-wheat bread with peanut butter.

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

1. Myth: Muscle “weighs” more than fat.
Reality: A pound is a pound is a pound—unless you’re defying the laws of physics. No substance weighs more then another one unless it actually weighs more. Simply put: One pound of fat weighs the same as one pound of muscle. “The difference is that fat is bulkier than muscle tissue and takes up more space under the skin,”

I don't think this is actually something that most people misunderstand -- the everyday person just says it in an ambiguous manner. They don't think in terms of density; they think in terms of what they see on the scale and in the mirror.

Of course a pound is a pound (with the exception of certain precious metals that have independent weight definitions); it would be silly to argue with that. It's similar to saying that 1kg of lead has more mass than 1kg of feathers. It just isn't true. The feathers, under normal circumstances, will obviously be less dense than the lead. In this exaggerated analogy, the feathers are fat and the lead is muscle. They will have the same mass, but have different densities (and thus take up different amounts of space).

I think the author is somewhat underestimating the level of intelligence of his/her audience.

2. Myth: Weight training converts fat to muscle.
Reality: This is physically impossible, Greenspan says. “Fat and muscle tissue are two completely different substances. Exercise such as strength training will help to build muscle, which encourages fat loss by increasing your resting metabolism so you can burn more calories throughout the day.” To get a lean look, you need to build muscle through weight training while simultaneously losing fat—but one doesn’t magically become the other.

QUOTE: I lost 35 pounds by walking. last 5k I did, was mostly walking.
I go by my HRM, and keep my beats per minute around 135-140.
(doctor says not to exceed 150) Walks are usually around 4.0 mph.

Worked for me!

I'd say you lost most of your weight from eating less and the walking helped. Must be pretty intense walking to get your heart rate up to that level.

Not when you start out as a big guy as I did. Just going up 1 or 2 flights of stairs my heart would get going!

You cut off the part where he said "Has it's place and great for many people that can't do anything more intense."

7. Myth: Long and slow cardio training burns the most fat.
Reality: While it’s true that lengthy, slow workouts will use up more fat for energy, they’re not the way to go for fat loss; instead focus on the total calories burned during and after your workout. Ditch devoting 75 mind-numbing minutes to a slow trod on the treadmill, and do interval training or higher-intensity exercise for half—or even a quarter—of that time, which kills more calories at a faster rate and keeps your metabolism revved post-gym sesh.

Or even better, actually develop some aerobic fitness so that you don't have to run at a slow trod.

Bottom line is that somebody who takes the time to develop their fitness properly will burn more calories and fat in their fat burning zone than the person doing HIIT who is constantly chasing the latest fat burning fad rather than taking a methodical approach to developing a high degree of fitness.

Bottom line is --- care to show all the most recent studies in sports science and nutrition that back your claim. There are fads and there are evolutions and/or revolutions in how to train, how to train best for fat loss, best for muscle gain, best for power, best for strength. Zumba is a fad - HIIT and then HIIT which targets the alactic and anaerobic systems whilst maintaining a high heart rate is the revolution and the evolution. Major problem with HIIT - it is really hard and the majority of people just cannot hack it.

Common sense backs it up. An aerobically fit average person might run around 8:30 miles in the fat burning zone (defined as that intensity where more than 50% of the energy is coming from fat). If that person weighs 173 lbs they will burn 270 cal in that time with 135 from fat. Given that HIIT is only actively exercising half that time and recovering the other half the calorie burn may be similar with the fat burn much smaller. The fit person did an extremely easy workout and burned the same number of calories and more fat calories than the other person burned in a maximum intensity session.

Additionally, the aerobically fit person, can keep the same intensity longer, burning much higher calories than the person doing HIIT and they can do it every day without any problems because the intensity is low.

Next, high intensity exercise has its place in developing fitness but it is a fallacy to believe it will develop the aerobic system by itself. I have read the studies and all they measure is development of VO2max, usually over the two or three month period of the experiment. What they always fail to mention in the studies is that (1) VO2max is one, but not the only component of aerobic fitness and (2) Fitness gains with HIIT peak and then plateau after 6 to 10 weeks. Further gains are only possible with additional development of the aerobic system accomplished with steady aerobic exercise. What they also fail to mention is that while the gains from HIIT are maxed in 6 to 10 weeks the gains from steady exercise will continue to build for years.

Finally, if people would develop an attitude of methodically developing their fitness instead of chasing the latest fads they would find that in the long term weight control will no longer be an issue. Form follows Fitness.

So, these studies then? But I can assure you that most of the statements that you have made are fallacious hyperbole in regard HIIT, especially HIIT with resistance training as opposed to - spicing up my mundane 55-65% of MHR and VO2max whilst performing another 2 hours important calorie burning "aerobic" exercise. What about the alactic and anaerobic systems in relation to burning fat - which of course is what the article was highlighting and NOT THAT TRUE AEROBIC WORKOUTS AT steady state of 75-85% MHR are not beneficial, those workouts still will not burn as many calories as systems that combine aerobic, anaerobic, alactic to achieve 90-100% MHR or VO2 MAX 150-170% nor will aerobic achieve the same EPOC as combining. It seems you would like people to stay in the weight loss past.

That whole paragraph about walking was just poorly done and irresponsible. Of course weight-loss happens faster when you combine exercise with diet. They acknowledged that much when they said it's best to combine strength training, cardio, AND diet. So why single out walking, as though people who walk for weight-loss don't also change their diet?

An obese woman reading that, who had been planning to start walking regularly, could very well say to herself "What's the use?" when the truth is that walking can work just as well as running or swimming or biking or weight training. It will take more time, but the ultimate issue at work here is caloric deficit, not which exercise is sexier.

This is what I am afraid of, exactly. That someone who is overweight and despereate, where I was when I started will read this and think there is no point in trying. Walking is the only thing I could manage at first, and if I had read this, I would have been very discouraged. If you are very overweight and very inactive, and you start walking, you are likely to get good results.