Top 10 myths about body fat

Options

Replies

  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    Options
    The old videos of various workouts from the 80s included in the "what happens to fat" video were very entertaining :)
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    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
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    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
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    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
    Showcase_Brodown Posts: 919 Member
    Options
    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.