The DEBUNKING thread.........myths that need to be trashed
Replies
-
YOU MUST "ALWAYS" BE IN CALORIE DEFICIT TO LOSE WEIGHT- While this would seem true based on expenditure, the human body is very unique in how it conserves energy. It's normal for you metabolic rate to slow down when your body senses calorie deficit. That's why stalls and plateaus happen. The body tries to compensate for the lower calories by reducing it's output of energy to try to conserve fat stores.
One of the best ways to "upset" this is to actually have a calorie surplus occasionally. If you've been a calorie deficit consistently for a period of time (let's say 3 months) and now have stalled, your body has adapted this pattern and compensates. So by bumping up your calories for a day or two, the body will sense the influx and will adapt by upping the metabolism. You may gain a pound or two (oooh neurotics won't like this) but once you go back to your calorie deficit, you more than likely will break that stall.
I agree with the caloric spiking. I have a free day about once a week, as much as I want. I lost 31lbs so far, 6 inches from my waist, 3inches from my pant size. In 3 months. The reason i have this free day is for a positive leptin response. If your on a low carb diet, or on a low calorie diet, for too long you will have impaired thyroid functions. This might be the same thing as the 2-3 month plateu you're talking about.
I also believe there is a big illusive obvious here, it's just so obvious we don't see it. If you lose weight, OF COURSE your metabolism will slow down, you're not moving as much weight.0 -
Most people don't really see that point. Where they used to burn 350 calories for 30 minutes, and now are down to 280 for the same 30 minutes, but know they worked just as hard, and maybe even harder, that because they weigh less their metabolism isn't the same.I agree with the caloric spiking. I have a free day about once a week, as much as I want. I lost 31lbs so far, 6 inches from my waist, 3inches from my pant size. In 3 months. The reason i have this free day is for a positive leptin response. If your on a low carb diet, or on a low calorie diet, for too long you will have impaired thyroid functions. This might be the same thing as the 2-3 month plateu you're talking about.
I also believe there is a big illusive obvious here, it's just so obvious we don't see it. If you lose weight, OF COURSE your metabolism will slow down, you're not moving as much weight.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
bump to read later0
-
Bump to read later0
-
Awsome thread! Niner, Tonya and others who have contributed great info, my thanks! This has been a great read confirming some of what I knew and teaching me a lot more. As trainers, how do you effectively communicated this and do peoples myths make your job harder?0
-
Believe me there are lots of trainers (some of old school thought and some of new school thought) that still believe some of these myths to be true. I can't say I know everything, but I do let people know that that I am ALWAYS willing to learn CORRECT information when it comes to fitness and nutrition.Awsome thread! Niner, Tonya and others who have contributed great info, my thanks! This has been a great read confirming some of what I knew and teaching me a lot more. As trainers, how do you effectively communicated this and do peoples myths make your job harder?
Some of the myths do make my job harder and that's when I have to throw in some TOUGH LOVE letting them know that when they ask why they aren't getting results with what they are doing now, that what they are doing now DOESN'T work for them anymore and introducing a different method may make them resistant to acceptance. People are usually creatures of HABIT so it's sometimes hard to get them the think and change. But I'm usually persistent with clients and when they get the results, they then have a tendency to trust what I'm telling them to do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Here is my problem with the post. You say that there are many giving advice that are based on myths. Please don't take this as personal but your statement that you have been a personal trainer and are certified means nothing on a forum. It is no different than the claim you started your thread with. So, why not provided some type of proof of your statements (some of which I agree with) from an outside source?
Sorry but there are many Americans that are obese. The point is that we need to do something...move.
Agree.... find it worrying that you class Obese as a "rare category" considering in America alone, according to JAMA that 40% of adult Americans are obese and 1/3 of American children are obese....Furthermore, agree with this posters suggestion.... I love these forums but Wrong information and claims of being a trainer - doesn't automatically make the OP right...0 -
I do believe that on my calorie deficit that I have gained some muscle or at least cut and shaped the ones I have already. I would go 2 or 3 weeks and not lose a pound, then do a week of cardio primarily and lose 2 pounds. I have not gained any weight but my chest and arms have gotten bigger and I'm actually forming a 6 package. I think the thread is well written and presented and do not disagree with anything. I just think its possible to get stronger and cut all while using a deficit, not actually bulking up.0
-
Getting a six pack is a matter of lowering body fat, and has nothing to do with building muscle. The muscles are always the same shape, no matter what. You get a six pack not because you make your stomach muscles bigger (that would just look like a bigger gut, as the muscle would just push the fat further out,) but because you eliminate the fat that was covering them.
Getting "cut" just means lowering body fat, hence a "cutting cycle," as opposed to a "bulking cycle" which is used to add muscle mass.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............
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.
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.
So, the piece of your #1 point I quoted above-does this mean that if you ARE starting out obese, you can build muscle with a calorie deficit? Because that seems to be exactly what is happening to me, with cardio 6 days a week (on the elliptical to protect my knees, as hard as I can go for 60 minutes), and 2-3 days of lifting heavy weights. My calorie deficit is only about 600 calories a day, and I eat back a lot of my exercise calories. I don't buy your claim that you don't build muscle, when I have moved from lifting 5 lb weights to 15-20 lb weights in less than two weeks and I can SEE the increased muscle in my arms and legs.
On number 4: I don't exercise strenuously ONLY to lose weight, but to strengthen my heart and cardiovascular system. Many, many of the people here were/are obese to begin with, and NEED strenuous exercise to strengthen their hearts, especially if, like me, they have been sedentary for many years and have a family history of heart disease and such. I think it is so irresponsible to come here and tell people they don't need to exercise hard.
Other benefits of strenuous exercise, in my own personal experience: HIGH decrease in anxiety/depression, better sleep, higher sex drive, increased confidence about the abilities of my body to work hard. I DON'T get all that from walking my dog around the neighborhood. Sorry.0 -
Increased strength is NOT always an indication of building muscle. Seeing more definition means you have less body fat and doesn't necessarily mean you've built muscle. If you've read the 3 exceptions of people who are able to build muscle on a calorie deficit, and are one of them, then you could be building muscle,but if you aren't then you probably aren't.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............
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.
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.
So, the piece of your #1 point I quoted above-does this mean that if you ARE starting out obese, you can build muscle with a calorie deficit? Because that seems to be exactly what is happening to me, with cardio 6 days a week (on the elliptical to protect my knees, as hard as I can go for 60 minutes), and 2-3 days of lifting heavy weights. My calorie deficit is only about 600 calories a day, and I eat back a lot of my exercise calories. I don't buy your claim that you don't build muscle, when I have moved from lifting 5 lb weights to 15-20 lb weights in less than two weeks and I can SEE the increased muscle in my arms and legs.
Where have I said you DON'T HAVE TO EXERCISE HARD? I stated that you don't have to have an ELEVATED HEART RATE to exercise and lose weight.On number 4: I don't exercise strenuously ONLY to lose weight, but to strengthen my heart and cardiovascular system. Many, many of the people here were/are obese to begin with, and NEED strenuous exercise to strengthen their hearts, especially if, like me, they have been sedentary for many years and have a family history of heart disease and such. I think it is so irresponsible to come here and tell people they don't need to exercise hard.
Other benefits of strenuous exercise, in my own personal experience: HIGH decrease in anxiety/depression, better sleep, higher sex drive, increased confidence about the abilities of my body to work hard. I DON'T get all that from walking my dog around the neighborhood. Sorry.
Sorry that you read into it wrong.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Thank you for the info. I am in very bad shape and have some health issues that makes it hard for me to do fast paced excercises. I am trying to walk at least 30 minutes a day. So far I have not done it everyday. But at least I know that any movement can help towards my weightloss.0
-
As for the Calorie thing, I have to comment because this has been such a fun conversation so far. Exercise Physiologists don't use Physics equations. First of all, the calories that physicists use do not equal the Calories exercise physiologists use. Ours are Kilocalories and actually 1000 times larger then the physics calories. Second, physicists keep saying we aren't doing any work when we lift a weight and put it back down because the weight is in the same position at the end of the movement as at the beginning of the movement.
Tonya, I love you to death and am not trying to be a pain -- really! But we physicists -- modern ones, at least -- don't use "calories" at all if we can avoid it. We work in the SI ("Le Systeme International d'Unites"), where energy is measured in joules (J). And, of course, you're correct: the calorie is the energy required to increase the temperature of one gram of water by one Celsius degree, while in the nutritional world, what's commonly referred to as the "calorie" is actually a thousand times as much, and will warm up a kilogram of water by 1 C°.
Also, I would never tell you that you don't do work when you raise a weight and then lower it to its starting position. On the contrary -- if you lift a mass m through a height h, you do m·g·h of work in raising it, and another m·g·h of work in lowering it, assuming constant velocity. It is true that the first work has a positive sign and the second is negative, but that doesn't matter to your muscles -- they neither know nor care whether you're doing negative or positive work. That matters only to the weight -- it's had zero total work done on it, and its final state is the same as its initial one. Your muscles still did the work, however.
As a physicist, if I want to really tick you off, here's how I'll do it: please stand with your arms stretched straight out to both sides, level, holding a 15-pound dumbbell in each hand. Don't move. Just stand there, perfectly still ... with your arms starting to tremble ... and then shake ... you're gritting your teeth ... sweat's starting to run down your forehead ... hold it ... hold it ... until you finally throw the weights at me and say, "What do you mean, I didn't do any work???!!?" Well, in the physical definition of work, sorry: no displacement, no work. But that just shows that physical work and muscle effort aren't the same thing.
Anyway, thanks for your patience. Just look at your picture, and then at mine. One thing's clear: exercise physiologists may not use physics equations, but they're a hell of a lot better-looking than physicists are! And the physicists appreciate it, too. I mean, we're not blind. :-)
James - to me you are the highlight of this thread! You are articulating everything that I wanted to say in such a fantastic manner
I'm A physics nerd and my partners a physicist so completely love the voice of reason! 0 -
This is true on a very superficial level, but it's misleading. Yes, the total amount of *work* required to walk a mile is identical to running that same mile (although *power* output is greater). BUT because you are stretching the length of the workout over a longer period of time by walking, you are actually burning fewer net calories, after subtracting the amount you would have burned anyway from sitting on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes. Is that making sense?
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?
Example:
Say your BMR is roughly 60 cal/hr, or 1 cal/min.
You run a mile in 8 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 8 calories anyway (due to BMR) if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 8 minutes. So 100-8= 92 net calories burned.
Or
You walk that same mile in 20 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 20 calories anyway if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes.
So 100-20= 80 net calories burned.
So technically, even though they require the same amount of work to complete the task, the higher power output activity will result in a larger net burn once BMR is accounted for.
If you want my two cents, however, I think trying to create a calorie deficit through exercise is a waste of time anyway. A proper deficit should be created with diet, and a training program should just be aimed at maintaining lean mass while on that calorie deficit (i.e. pick up heavy things a few times per week), so that the majority of the weight lost is fat mass.0 -
I think everyone needs to stop being so tied down to the idea of a calorie. Our bodies don't work like bomb-calorimeters.0
-
James gave me a much better understanding on the physics of running and had me recant my original post of walking and running burning the same amount of calories when the distance was the same.James - to me you are the highlight of this thread! You are articulating everything that I wanted to say in such a fantastic manner I'm A physics nerd and my partners a physicist so completely love the voice of reason!
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I'm always open to correction as long as the information provided has good scientific study.This is true on a very superficial level, but it's misleading. Yes, the total amount of *work* required to walk a mile is identical to running that same mile (although *power* output is greater). BUT because you are stretching the length of the workout over a longer period of time by walking, you are actually burning fewer net calories, after subtracting the amount you would have burned anyway from sitting on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes. Is that making sense?
Example:
Say your BMR is roughly 60 cal/hr, or 1 cal/min.
You run a mile in 8 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 8 calories anyway (due to BMR) if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 8 minutes. So 100-8= 92 net calories burned.
Or
You walk that same mile in 20 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 20 calories anyway if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes.
So 100-20= 80 net calories burned.
So technically, even though they require the same amount of work to complete the task, the higher power output activity will result in a larger net burn once BMR is accounted for.
If you want my two cents, however, I think trying to create a calorie deficit through exercise is a waste of time anyway. A proper deficit should be created with diet, and a training program should just be aimed at maintaining lean mass while on that calorie deficit (i.e. pick up heavy things a few times per week), so that the majority of the weight lost is fat mass.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Another reason why running 1 mile uses more energy than walking one mile is that when running you are lifting your body off the ground vertically as well as moving it horizontally. I read some research on this somewhere on the internet and interestingly walking at 2 mph actually uses more energy than walking at 3 mph as at 2 mph you are constantly breaking and having to overcome the inertia with each step while at 3 mph the body can get into a rhythym with one step providing momentum for the next. The energy levels then increase again above 4mph.0
-
The "calories of run vs walk" is not a hypothetical issue, open to discussion and speculation. The research on this has been done for decades.
There is a qualitative difference in the energy cost of running vs walking. For any given distance, up to walking speeds of say 4.2-4.5 miles per hour, you burn more calories running that distance than walking that distance.
Walking the distance at different speeds will burn the same amount of calories.
Running the distance at different speeds will burn the same amount of calories.
Running vs walking = not equivalent.
The exception to this is competitive racewalking--once you start getting into the 6+ mph range, walking becomes so mechanically inefficient that the energy cost of walking becomes greater than running at the same speed. But that has little practical application.0 -
Really? So why do cars get better mileage on the freeway than in the city? You obviously are going much slower in the city. Going faster creates greater forces of resistance against the moving object.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 mph
You can't really compare cars and people. Cars get better gas mileage on the freeway because they don't have to stop and start moving, inertia gets in the way, and it takes more energy to get a vehicle moving from a stand still than it does to keep it moving at an even speed. If you drive 55 mph, depending on the car, you will get better mpg than at 75, the wind drag plays into it then.0 -
bump0
-
bump0
-
I know firsthand that the part of walking and running the same distance burns the same amount of calories. I can walk for 30 minutes and burn 163 calories and then on days when I do the c25k program (on week 2 now - which includes 9 minutes of jogging/running) I burn 163 calories in that 30 minutes.0
-
If you are going to commit to a weight loss program you have to understand it won't be comfortable if it is you are doing it wrong.
LOVE this!! 0 -
I'm always open to correction as long as the information provided has good scientific study.This is true on a very superficial level, but it's misleading. Yes, the total amount of *work* required to walk a mile is identical to running that same mile (although *power* output is greater). BUT because you are stretching the length of the workout over a longer period of time by walking, you are actually burning fewer net calories, after subtracting the amount you would have burned anyway from sitting on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes. Is that making sense?
Example:
Say your BMR is roughly 60 cal/hr, or 1 cal/min.
You run a mile in 8 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 8 calories anyway (due to BMR) if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 8 minutes. So 100-8= 92 net calories burned.
Or
You walk that same mile in 20 minutes and burn 100 calories. But you would have burned 20 calories anyway if you just sat on your *kitten* for that 20 minutes.
So 100-20= 80 net calories burned.
So technically, even though they require the same amount of work to complete the task, the higher power output activity will result in a larger net burn once BMR is accounted for.
If you want my two cents, however, I think trying to create a calorie deficit through exercise is a waste of time anyway. A proper deficit should be created with diet, and a training program should just be aimed at maintaining lean mass while on that calorie deficit (i.e. pick up heavy things a few times per week), so that the majority of the weight lost is fat mass.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
This is basic physics.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions