The DEBUNKING thread.........myths that need to be trashed
ninerbuff
Posts: 49,026 Member
As a trainer I hear so much advice and opinions that aren't usually based on science and study and are usually anecdotal. I feel that it's important to ensure that actual information that have facts and peer viewed studies to back them up be the information that should be shared with the members. So here goes............
1. "YOU'RE BUILDING AND GAINING MUSCLE, THAT'S WHY THE SCALE IS MOVING"- One of the biggest myths in the weight loss industry. I can promise you that all the BS ads you read about supplements and programs that tell you that you can "build muscle" while on a calorie deficit has been debunked by many studies. Unless you're in the rare category of being obese, starting an exercise program and have never done one before with consistency, or being a athlete returning to exercise, IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to gain muscle on a calorie deficit program.
There will be some that swear they have muscle they NEVER had before, but in reality you've always had it............it was just covered up with fat. Anyone will look more "muscular" if the fat that covers it is reduced.
If the scale ain't moving, it's due to water retention in most cases, or that your diet needs attention.
So don't buy into this. To actually gain muscle you need to be in CALORIE SURPLUS. Let's put this one to rest.
2. "YOU ARE BUILDING LONG LEAN MUSCLES"- Many Pilates, Yoga and "Toning" DVD's and programs make this claim. The truth is you cannot change the length of your muscles unless it's done by surgery. Your muscles are permanently held onto your bones by tendons and unless the tendon ruptures, no amount of stretching, hanging, or exercises will lengthen them. These type of statements are made, mostly to women, because it appeals to the idea that their workouts won't build "bulky" muscles.
3. "I DON'T LIFT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET BULKY"- Whenever you start a strength program, your muscles will swell and you will retain water and glycogen with your body's anticipation that it will continue to work out and this storage is needed to fuel the workouts. When body builders "bulk" up, they eat in calorie surplus and will add muscle and FAT. If you are on calorie deficit, you shouldn't be doing either. The swelling is temporary and if you continue to workout consistently, will eventually subside.
4. "YOU CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT UNLESS YOU EXERCISE WITH AN ELEVATED HEART RATE"- Many that tout "high intensity" and "elevated heart rate" exercise is the only way to effectively lose weight don't seem to understand that calories are burned just through activity regardless of heart rate. Whether you run an 8 min mile or walk a 20 minute mile, the calories expended at the end are the SAME. The difference is in the duration and intensity. Now while it's true that higher intensity raises resting metabolic rate, many people who are in poor health to begin with can't do this type of workout.
To make it clear, if a person walked 2 miles one day and ran 1 mile the next, they would have burned more calories on the walk than the run.
You do want to try to work on your cardiovascular endurance and fitness, but you definitely DO NOT have to have an elevated heart rate to make an exercise effective.
I'll add more (and hopefully others in-the-know will too) as this thread continues.
1. "YOU'RE BUILDING AND GAINING MUSCLE, THAT'S WHY THE SCALE IS MOVING"- One of the biggest myths in the weight loss industry. I can promise you that all the BS ads you read about supplements and programs that tell you that you can "build muscle" while on a calorie deficit has been debunked by many studies. Unless you're in the rare category of being obese, starting an exercise program and have never done one before with consistency, or being a athlete returning to exercise, IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to gain muscle on a calorie deficit program.
There will be some that swear they have muscle they NEVER had before, but in reality you've always had it............it was just covered up with fat. Anyone will look more "muscular" if the fat that covers it is reduced.
If the scale ain't moving, it's due to water retention in most cases, or that your diet needs attention.
So don't buy into this. To actually gain muscle you need to be in CALORIE SURPLUS. Let's put this one to rest.
2. "YOU ARE BUILDING LONG LEAN MUSCLES"- Many Pilates, Yoga and "Toning" DVD's and programs make this claim. The truth is you cannot change the length of your muscles unless it's done by surgery. Your muscles are permanently held onto your bones by tendons and unless the tendon ruptures, no amount of stretching, hanging, or exercises will lengthen them. These type of statements are made, mostly to women, because it appeals to the idea that their workouts won't build "bulky" muscles.
3. "I DON'T LIFT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET BULKY"- Whenever you start a strength program, your muscles will swell and you will retain water and glycogen with your body's anticipation that it will continue to work out and this storage is needed to fuel the workouts. When body builders "bulk" up, they eat in calorie surplus and will add muscle and FAT. If you are on calorie deficit, you shouldn't be doing either. The swelling is temporary and if you continue to workout consistently, will eventually subside.
4. "YOU CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT UNLESS YOU EXERCISE WITH AN ELEVATED HEART RATE"- Many that tout "high intensity" and "elevated heart rate" exercise is the only way to effectively lose weight don't seem to understand that calories are burned just through activity regardless of heart rate. Whether you run an 8 min mile or walk a 20 minute mile, the calories expended at the end are the SAME. The difference is in the duration and intensity. Now while it's true that higher intensity raises resting metabolic rate, many people who are in poor health to begin with can't do this type of workout.
To make it clear, if a person walked 2 miles one day and ran 1 mile the next, they would have burned more calories on the walk than the run.
You do want to try to work on your cardiovascular endurance and fitness, but you definitely DO NOT have to have an elevated heart rate to make an exercise effective.
I'll add more (and hopefully others in-the-know will too) as this thread continues.
0
Replies
-
Sorry, I stopped when you said it was rare to fin someone who's obese.
LOL, I live in America.
Gonna go back and read the rest now(:
It's nice to know I won't turn into a body builder when I start doing weights :P I'm glad you posted this, it'll help a lot of people out.0 -
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
I can't wait to read more as you think of them.
These are things I've always been SO confused about.0 -
terrific info - thanks
0 -
wait did I read that right....you saying you burn as many calories walking the same distance as a run or did I confuse myself?0
-
LOVE IT! MORE MORE! All of these things you just debunked....I believed for so long. Thank you. 0
-
THANK YOU!0
-
Love it...thanks for posting!0
-
Thank you for this information!!0
-
I see what you're saying about 2 miles walked vs 1 mile running... but in my experience I've found that I burn MORE calories when I run 1 mile than if I walk 2 miles.
I understand the theory behind it - but, in my experience running 1 mile is gonna burn a whole lot more calories than simply walking for 2 miles.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.wait did I read that right....you saying you burn as many calories walking the same distance as a run or did I confuse myself?0 -
Thanks for passing on your knowledge about these topics. It reminds me that I need to eat more calories because I am trying to build muscle.0
-
wait did I read that right....you saying you burn as many calories walking the same distance as a run or did I confuse myself?
Basically.
Think of it this way, you moved 200lbs of weight 1 mile, it doesn't matter if it took you 20 min or 10 min, you still went 1 mile. The thing about running in the long term is that in theory you can go FARTHER in the same TIME frame, and there for hopefully have time to move that weight more and for a longer time, so you cover 2 miles in 20 min instead of just one.
I do have a caveat about the building muscle with a deficit. I'm OBVIOUSLY gaining muscle and still have a deficit, it's just not a 2lbs a week loss, more like 1/2-1lbs a week loss and protein that is much higher than MFP sets (I'm somewhere about 130-140g a day).
I'm a nursing student too, so the amount of information I've learned about how the body works and breaks down things definitely helps me to manage my diet AND exercise.0 -
I entered walking 2.0 mph for 30min in the database and it said I would burn 91 calories, I entered in running a 6min mile for 6min (to equal the same 1 mile I entered for walking) and it said I would burn 116 calories. So really the difference isn't that huge (only 25 calories)! Thanks for the information, I learned something interesting today!0
-
As a trainer I hear so much advice and opinions that aren't usually based on science and study and are usually anecdotal. I feel that it's important to ensure that actual information that have facts and peer viewed studies to back them up be the information that should be shared with the members. So here goes............
Thank you! This is all so awesome. :]
It makes sense that you can walk a 20 minute mile and burn as much as running a 10 minute mile.
Though it doesn't change the fact I prefer sweating intensely to a leisurely walk. lol.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.
This definitely doesn't hold true for cycling: 10 miles at 15 mph burns less calories than cycling 10 miles at 18 mph. There is empirical proof of this in a number of places, not to mention my own experience with my heart rate monitor and numerous exercise calculators. Therefore, I don't see how it could hold true for walking or running.0 -
As a trainer I hear so much advice and opinions that aren't usually based on science and study and are usually anecdotal. I feel that it's important to ensure that actual information that have facts and peer viewed studies to back them up be the information that should be shared with the members. So here goes............
Thank you! This is all so awesome. :]
It makes sense that you can walk a 20 minute mile and burn as much as running a 10 minute mile.
Though it doesn't change the fact I prefer sweating intensely to a leisurely walk. lol.
Not me! I hate being sweaty! In all honesty though, it is nice to know that I can get the same benefits by walking, especially when it is really hot and humid out. I can walk miles. I can run maybe a block.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.wait did I read that right....you saying you burn as many calories walking the same distance as a run or did I confuse myself?
I'm not sure about that either. I read an (old ) article in Runner's World that disagrees with that....
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
Sorry, it's a really long article, but very interesting.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.
This definitely doesn't hold true for cycling: 10 miles at 15 mph burns less calories than cycling 10 miles at 18 mph. There is empirical proof of this in a number of places, not to mention my own experience with my heart rate monitor and numerous exercise calculators. Therefore, I don't see how it could hold true for walking or running.
He's referring to distance, not mph.
Cycle a mile at both and compare calories at the end.0 -
Not me! I hate being sweaty! In all honesty though, it is nice to know that I can get the same benefits by walking, especially when it is really hot and humid out. I can walk miles. I can run maybe a block.
I'll admit I didn't like it either. It's something I've acquired over time. I also have air conditioning where I work out ;] so it's not as bad for me lol.0 -
Thank you for the information....I look forward to learning more from you0
-
You don't. You may FEEL that way, and it's not a theory. It's basic physics. If I ran as fast as I could I might last a couple of hundred yards and felt my lungs burning, my heart rate high and fall to the ground to catch my breath. If I walked 400 yards, I wouldn't be breathing hard, my lungs wouldn't be burning, and I could probably walk even further. I would have burned more calories WALKING than running even though the running FELT HARDER.I see what you're saying about 2 miles walked vs 1 mile running... but in my experience I've found that I burn MORE calories when I run 1 mile than if I walk 2 miles.
I understand the theory behind it - but, in my experience running 1 mile is gonna burn a whole lot more calories than simply walking for 2 miles.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.
This definitely doesn't hold true for cycling: 10 miles at 15 mph burns less calories than cycling 10 miles at 18 mph. There is empirical proof of this in a number of places, not to mention my own experience with my heart rate monitor and numerous exercise calculators. Therefore, I don't see how it could hold true for walking or running.
He's referring to distance, not mph.
Cycle a mile at both and compare calories at the end.
I gave a distance: 10 miles. At two different paces. Same distance, different speed, which is what he was talking about.0 -
Heres one I liked...
"I don't want to bulk up, I just want to tone up!"
Uh, flex.
Say hello to your muscle.
Now, you can either leave it as it is and simply burn fat via cardio. Or you can do strength training, build the muscle up a bit, and burn off less fat to get it to show through.
There is so such thing as toning. You either build muscle and burn fat, or you simply burn fat. Be happy with what you have under there or go build more. 0 -
Speed does play a factor in how many calories are burned. Think of a car. If moving the same amount of weight the same distance at any speed resulted in the same energy expended then you wouldn't get better gas mileage at different speeds. 60 or 120 mph and you'd burn exactly the same amount of gas in 100 miles? no, no you won't.
*ET erase my missing 6 min mile for 6 mph0 -
I gave a distance: 10 miles. At two different paces. Same distance, different speed, which is what he was talking about.
Then you have to take into consideration that cycling on a stationary can include resistance- this can change the outcome.
Edited: plus, when you're cycling faster you're trying harder.
I think this goes off of the general assumption that the ratio to speed and effort is equal in both instances.0 -
If the distance it the goal, let's say 1 mile, whether you run it or walk it the calories burned is the SAME.wait did I read that right....you saying you burn as many calories walking the same distance as a run or did I confuse myself?
Is that based on the average that you burn about 100 calories a mile? I dont see where it make sense? I would think it would have to do with each individuals own body. I person who is heavier I could see them burning more calories or the same on a 1 mile walk vs a 1 mile run, they have more body and fat to move around. A person who is lighter I dont see them burning the same. The more fit you are any ways, the less you burn working out high intensity any way. I can run with my friend 3 miles and she is a very fit trainer and burns 200 calories vs my 400 burn so how does that factor into all this??0 -
An interesting paper on running efficiency vs walking efficiency
http://edulife.com.br/dados\Artigos\Educacao Fisica\Fisiologia do Exercicio%
5CEnergy%20expenditure%20of%20walking%20and%20running%20comparison%20with%
20prrediction%20equations.pdf
The physics of running vs walking is not as simple as weight * distance between the start and end point, you have to consider the efficiency of how you get between the two points which will include both the vertical distance travelled and (too a much smaller extent) such things as wind resistance.
Not everything in life is equivalent to a sphere in a vacuum 0 -
saying running a mile and walking a mile burns the same number of calories is a very old school way of thinking an has been proven incorrect time and time again....0
-
I entered walking 2.0 mph for 30min in the database and it said I would burn 91 calories, I entered in running a 6min mile for 6min (to equal the same 1 mile I entered for walking) and it said I would burn 116 calories. So really the difference isn't that huge (only 25 calories)! Thanks for the information, I learned something interesting today!
Err your math's a bit off. It would take 10 minutes of running at 6 mph to hit 1 mile traveled. at 6 minutes you'd be at .6 miles traveled. Which means that if you entered it as you said jogging at 6 mph would burn almost double the calories.
Speed does play a factor in how many calories are burned. Think of a car. If moving the same amount of weight the same distance at any speed resulted in the same energy expended then you wouldn't get better gas mileage at different speeds. 60 or 120 mph and you'd burn exactly the same amount of gas in 100 miles? no, no you won't.
I totally get the car thing!!
I walked 5 miles pushing my daughters stroller which is 15 lbs and then add her weight 32 took me an hour and a half and my HRM said I burned 980 calories......I can run the same 5 miles with out the stroller in 1 hour and burn 650 so I am totally sticking with it is not the same walk run burn the same! There are so many factors that it just doesnt make sense!! LOL0 -
saying running a mile and walking a mile burns the same number of calories is a very old school way of thinking an has been proven incorrect time and time again....
:happy:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions