Interesting article on weight loss myths

I agreed with the article. Some of the myth in it I learned it the hard way . Like spent 2 hours workout at the gym.

Jruzer wrote: »

OK I'm going to confess to some confusion regarding the philosophies of lifting vs cardio:

On one hand, don't do cardio as your body adapts to it so your calorie burn decreases as you get more fit.

On the other hand, weight lifting doesn't burn many calories.

On the gripping hand, although weights help you preserve lean muscle tissue, and muscle is metabolically more expensive than fat, most people are only going to gain a small amount of muscle, if any.

So: cardio doesn't burn much, and lifting doesn't burn much. Can anyone untangle this?

Exercise is for fitness and health. Calorie deficit is for weight loss.

That should sum it up.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I don't agree that nobody gets fat from eating 5000 calories of veggies. 5000 calories is too much no matter what it is (am I missing something or did I read that wrong?).

And 35 hours to burn a pound ... Don't think so.

ninerbuff wrote: »

Jruzer wrote: »

OK I'm going to confess to some confusion regarding the philosophies of lifting vs cardio:

On one hand, don't do cardio as your body adapts to it so your calorie burn decreases as you get more fit.

On the other hand, weight lifting doesn't burn many calories.

On the gripping hand, although weights help you preserve lean muscle tissue, and muscle is metabolically more expensive than fat, most people are only going to gain a small amount of muscle, if any.

So: cardio doesn't burn much, and lifting doesn't burn much. Can anyone untangle this?

Exercise is for fitness and health. Calorie deficit is for weight loss.

That should sum it up.

I'm intentionally playing to dumb to illustrate what I see as a contradiction in the perceived wisdom here. And for the record I see value in both weight training and cardiovascular exercise.

I agree with your statement as far as it goes, but when I'm looking to drop weight, like I am now, my deficit pretty much comes from my exercise calories.

I understand the point of the article, and for the most part I agree with it. But I think point #1 is sloppy:

The body adapts to cardio within four-to-five sessions,

so I'll be fit in a week or 2? Cool. Or maybe is adaptation more complex than that?

which means while you may still be running three-to-five miles in the same amount of time, you’re burning less and less energy to do the same amount of work. In other words, you’re losing less weight.

Certainly your burn will decrease as you lose weight and as you get more fit. Which is why most sensible people run harder, longer, and faster as they improve their fitness.

Cardio also doesn’t help you build muscle.

I'll grant that, but so what? If you're in a deficit you're probably not gaining anyway.

Too much cardio can actually cause you to atrophy muscle tissue, meaning your metabolic rate will also decline.
...
All of this basically means that too much cardio will leave you skinny fat, with the metabolism of a 70-year-old woman – 50 years too soon.

"Too much" is undefined, I note. Is 30 minutes a day too much? 1 hour a day? 3 hours a day? What if I'm training for an Iron Man? I know people who have.

MrM27 wrote: »

Phoenix_Down wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Phoenix_Down wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

I don't really agree with #1 and #9, especially when you consider them together. First, some people grain a significant amount of muscle while doing cardio. And while #9 may be true for some exercise, it isn't very true of cardio, when you consider that you can burn off a pound of fat in about 4 hours rather than the 35 hours the article suggests. For that matter, what kind of exercise only burns 100 calories in an hour?

I'd love to meet these people and know under what circumstances these things occur

He won't know. He frequently makes generalized statements like that that are false which he can't back up.

I've noticed this pattern. When asked to back up bold statements that are said as fact, magically he disappears with no reply. It's odd. I was looking forward to my potential massive muscle gains from running.

It only happens if you are running to the freezer for gelato.

Check your group invite.

Sweet!! Pun intended (*'▽'*)♪

I can't get over "...gawking at their swamp *kitten*." from #2. I'm laughing harder than I should right now.

so what is "too much cardio"? I run to and from work every day (8k each way) and run on my lunch break (another 5k). on my days off I'll do anywhere from 22 to 38k...not only are my muscles not atrophying, my thighs seem to get more gigantic every time i look at them and unless fat comes in a version that's rock hard, it's muscle.... lol

EWJLang wrote: »

Too much cardo=more than gives you pleasure. If you love running, etc. DO IT. It's the people who feel awful every step of the way that this is for. You don't HAVE to do it. You should if it makes you happy. Moving is great. Do the kind of moving you like. The end.

I agree with this.

But the author of the article warns of dire consequences - metabolism of a 70-year-old woman! skinny fat! muscle atrophy! - by doing "too much" cardio. Shouldn't the author tell us how much is "too much" to avoid these bad results?

Or is this, as I think it is, just the pendulum swinging too far the other way?