question about weight training
- Thread starter heycal
- Start date
No of course it does not. Man, I can't believe I go away for a couple years and people now look at RICKSON as an "expert" in anything?! What a clueless guy. By the way Rickson, still playing with the 3.0's who literally volley better than Roddick? LOL
Anyhow, you are absolutely right Cal. This kind of simplistic math, while rampant in dieting/personal training domains is not accurate. FOR so many reasons. It doesn't take einstein to figure that out....just slightly more thank rickson...
You're saying it's more or less true that one would lose 52 lbs in a year and 102 pounds in two years if they cut out 500 calories a day from their diet?? Come on, Rickson. Use your head. If some 200 pounder goes from eating 3500 calories a day to 3000 calories a day and sticks with that for 2 years, he ain't gonna weight 98 lbs two years later. If this were true, he'd end up weighing Negative-4 lbs in four years.
How many - 4 lbs guys do you know out there?
Yes, I saw that. And I said, but what if they do?
Even dieting for one year at this rate would result it very unbelievable 52 lb weight loss. Heck, even Losing 26 pounds in six months of going from 3500 to 3000 calories for that time period sounds HIGHLY unlikely.
Gmedlo
Professional
Why does that sound unlikely?
Because I was using a normal person for a frame of reference, say a 200 lbs man, maybe 6' feet tall. Not some 450 pound man. And I'm telling you, a normal 200 lb guy is not going to lose 52 lbs in a year by switching from 3500 to 3000 calories a day. Doesn't pass the smell test.
Actually that kind of permanent calorie drop happens to thousands of people every year. Various lifestyle changes. For example, many people who switch to vegetarian diets find themselves dropping 500 calories a day.
In fact there are people out there who are permanently dropping 1500+ calories per day for the rest of their lives (well that is the plan anyways and many have now gone for years), they lost A LOT of weight but of course, do not disappear as they should within a few months with Rickson's child thinking.
Yes, I was going to give the example of a 2000 calorie 130lb woman who drops to 1500 calories a day. Strict but more than doable. According to this idiotic model, she'll be quite the runway model envy in a year.
ROFL. So he drops to 2300 calories (hardly unheard of) and becomes a 100lb man in 2 years? OMG. I see you know nearly as much about exercise as you do tennis Rickson!
This is quite true Cal and I have never been a fan of this both during my training and in my clients. However, bear in mind that this is not nearly as simple as it sounds either. It is of course far harder to sustain the faster pace for the same length of time. I can jog easily for 2-3 hours at a slow pace but if switch to fast run, 1 hour can be exhausting. There is the metabolic after-affect of the running to consider as well as the systemic load you are incurring on your recovery systems. One thing to note, when talking about longer distance jogging(not anaerobic activities) is that, you will often hear fitness sheep now saying that "hey, you burn more calories running faster!". They will then show figures showing that you do burn more calories per mile at a faster pace. HOWEVER, the amount is TRIVIAL. Thus, it is true that if you run 30min. in both cases, you will burn a fair amount more at the faster pace. If you run say, 3 miles at either pace, calories burned during activity will be about the same. It will just take an extra 5-10 min. at a significantly slower pace. Thus, there are many factors to consider, in exercise programd design. Faster= better is thus not always true.
Oh and CAl in regards to your question regarding the "idiot math weight loss formula". There are MANY factors which are involved, many of which I'm sure most people can see with a bit of common sense. I'd say that 2 of the most important are obviously homeostatic mechanisms in the body primarily through basal metabolic rate and/or hormonal balances. Both are HUGE factors in weight loss and will be altered by changes in diet/exercise.
But it sounds like you are saying faster IS better. If you run for X amount of TIME fast instead of slow, you will burn more calories. Ok. But if you run a SET DISTANCE, you will burn the same amount of calories regardless of your pace-- 3 miles is 3 miles and going to burn Y number of calories regardless of your speed, right? Ergo, faster IS better because what's the advantage of having to run for 10 minutes longer just to burn the same amount of calories you would have if you ran faster and finished in less time? Am I understanding all this right?
Right! so in this sense it is...more efficient! But what I'm saying is, sometimes if I have a person for whom running at a higher speed for that distance is impossible or simply WAY too taxing (which might lead to overtraining and/or less training in coming days - although note, the longer distance could be just as taxing on the body in slightly different ways), then it might be better to go for a lower intensity experience.
In highly trained athletes, it doesn't matter quite as much as the faster speed is relatively less intense for them and they are used to higher workload demands anyways(though personally I think the workload capacity is highly individual regardless of conditioning). BUT, even in these individuals, I might choose to have them run 2 or 3 or 4x farther at the slower pace, a distance even they could not do at all at the faster pace! It just depends on them, what they're training for and what their goal is. Obviously, if we are going just for sheer calories burned during exercise, the slower for much farther can do much, much more. (some would argue that the metabolic afterburn is not as high with slower activity, I think this true to SOME extent but this to, has been oversimplified).
So, yes, definitely more efficient and this to can be important in limited time workouts. On the other hand, slowing by 1min. per mile is a huge difference in perceived exertion.....let alone say....3 min. per mile. If you're running even a fairly long distance, let's say 5 miles....that is only a grand total of 15 min. or so that you "gain" in your life. So, I tend not to worry terrible much about the "efficiency" gain.
So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying slower is better, only that there are pros and cons to both and the sheeplike "fitness" experts (mail-in, attended some "seminars" certificates in hand) have probably swung too far towards the "fast" idea right at this time. I was advocating "fast" before fast was cool ;-) But I also see that slow has some VERY appropriate usages for quite a lot of people!
Yeah, but it still seems like you're saying all else being equal, faster is better, correct? For a normal healthy person just looking to stay in shape and lose a few pounds of fat maybe, and running 30 minutes three times a week, going a bit faster is going to burn more calories than going slower.
yes, definitely. Particularly if you are going to set up your workout by time. ie. I'm running 30 min.
If you set up your workout this way, not only are you more intense during that 30 min but naturally, you will of course, have "gone farther".
To give you one real-world example of when I might go the other way, say I have a client who isn't going to run a fixed 20 min. but wants to run 3 miles. He can do this comfortably in 30 min. He can also really, really push and do this 24 min. Ok, fine, we saved 6 min. AND he will see improved aerobic performance from his intensity AND he might get a slightly higher metabolic boost after. On the other hand, this shaving of 2min. per mile is hardly a trivial difference! Now he's too tired to do...say the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do (or can't do them with the same intensity). Maybe he also needs an extra day off a week to handle this demand. Now, I might well choose to taper back and do the 30 min pace, depending on what we're after!
Last edited:
ROFL! Perfect. The irony....
Rickson, you were the absolute joke of this board a couple years ago. I can't think of another poster who regarded more poorly by...well everybody. I am glad to see you've hung in there so long, but of course, it's troubling that somebody might think you know what you're talking about. You're a total fraud and WE both know it. How's your buddy Gino? Volleying better than Federer, if not Mcenroe, by now. Right?
PS. Don't try taking me on Rickson. I will come after you and you will lose. You can't match knowledge with me on any area of tennis or fitness. In addition, I REMEMBER all the stupid things you've said. LOL
Gmedlo
Professional
bet, even though I haven't seen any of your posts in any thread other than this one, I already see you as a joke, simply because of the way you carry yourself in your posts.
Oh, and I think you're stupid if you believe that someone that cuts 500 calories a day from their diet, and keeps all other factors consistent in comparison to their old diet and lifestyle, won't lose a significant amount of weight. You're also trying to argue against something that was never inferred; the notion that someone would be reduced to nothingness if they continued on a restricted calorie diet was never mentioned by Rickson. It's obvious that you have some previous beef with him that makes you unable to pull your head out of your ass, but please, use a little common sense before posting.
Oh, and your last example is really cracking me up, since you argued that the amount of calories you burn in a 24 minute, 3 mile run is trivially larger than that of a 30 minute, 3 mile run, yet after the 24 minute run, you say the client might be "too tired to do the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do." Where does all this energy go, and what does the body use to get the energy?
Oh, and I think you're stupid if you believe that someone that cuts 500 calories a day from their diet, and keeps all other factors consistent in comparison to their old diet and lifestyle, won't lose a significant amount of weight. You're also trying to argue against something that was never inferred; the notion that someone would be reduced to nothingness if they continued on a restricted calorie diet was never mentioned by Rickson. It's obvious that you have some previous beef with him that makes you unable to pull your head out of your ass, but please, use a little common sense before posting.
Oh, and your last example is really cracking me up, since you argued that the amount of calories you burn in a 24 minute, 3 mile run is trivially larger than that of a 30 minute, 3 mile run, yet after the 24 minute run, you say the client might be "too tired to do the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do." Where does all this energy go, and what does the body use to get the energy?
Sure, they will lose weight. But they will not continue to lose 1 lbs a week. Common sense says a normal 200 lb, 6 foot man will not lose 26 pounds in six months simply by sticking with that diet, and certainly not 52 lbs in a year.
Gmedlo
Professional
A 200lb, 6ft man with 25% bf very well may lose 26 pounds in six months if he cuts 500 calories a day, and I really fail to see what common sense this goes against.
Indeed. That poster obviously did not even read my posts or was unable to understand them. I already explained this fully. Nor did anybody claim that they wouldn't lose weight! lol
So in a year this same man would lose 52 lbs? And in two years 102 lbs? What is your common sense telling you now?
It's obvious you didn't read my previous posts. I never claimed they wouldn't lose a significant amount of weight and I explained some of the many factors involved in the equation. Please re-read and if you have questions, quote directly and I'll try to address them if you leave out the insults.
I am not sure what you are defining as "energy". This could be taken many ways, both colloquially or in a pure physics sense. I didn't use the term so when you ask "where does all the energy go?", you'll have to be more specific or define your terms.
If you are confused by what I was explaining with the running, I'll clarify a bit. The intensity of the workout, makes quite a difference in it's effect on the body. Even though the same amount of "work" is done, when the body must deliver this work in a shorter time frame, the effect is quite different. In a physiological sense, the energy systems that are called to fuel the workout are used in different proportions.
In an every day sense, you can try an experiment for yourself, run 3 miles as fast as you possibly can. A few days later, walk 3 miles. Note which one you feel more tired after. Hopefully most people can understand this, even if you can't. I think most people who have worked out or played tennis before(at a high level) will find this pretty intuitive. If you ever do any demanding aerobic exercise, you'll probably find that experienced people, in whatever the activity, will talk about "pacing". This is due to the basic process I'm explaining. The WAY you travel the distance makes quite a difference in your fatigue even if it is the same distance.
It seems like you might be confusing "calories burned" with "tired". Certainly there is a general correlation between the 2 but they are NOT the same, nor is the correlation perfect!
Gmedlo
Professional
bet: Oh my god, it's like Japanese Maple created another account. I'll solve the problem earlier this time around.
Heycal, they don't have 102 pounds of body fat, and why would anyone that somehow dips to fatally low body fat levels continue to restrict their calories? I mean, if they really wanted to, they could cut down to 98 pounds, assuming they want the majority of their muscle to atrophy and their bones to be as thin as paper.
If you want to be as uselessly hypothetical as you are then you have to think about why they couldn't continue to lose weight by restricting calories. It's because they would DIE. DIE. DEATH. GET IT?
Heycal, they don't have 102 pounds of body fat, and why would anyone that somehow dips to fatally low body fat levels continue to restrict their calories? I mean, if they really wanted to, they could cut down to 98 pounds, assuming they want the majority of their muscle to atrophy and their bones to be as thin as paper.
If you want to be as uselessly hypothetical as you are then you have to think about why they couldn't continue to lose weight by restricting calories. It's because they would DIE. DIE. DEATH. GET IT?
It's not a useless hypothetical, but a very useful one to illustrate the limitations of using math formulas in the field of dieting. The point I was trying to make, in case you haven't figured it out yet, is that I'm certain the body will adapt and change to the new calorie count after while, and you will not continue to lose 1 pound a week for as long as you dieted. Switching from 2300 to 1800 hundred calorie a day or whatever and staying there will certainly cease taking off the pounds after awhile.
Come on, use your head here...
r2473
G.O.A.T.
I don't have any links to back this statement up, but it worked for me. When I would get stuck at a weight, I would eat most of an entire large pizza. It would unstick me.
Nothing scientific. It simply worked for me. (It may or may not work for you. Everyone is different).
So the occassional pig out actually helped you lose weight?
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Yup.
Two years ago I lost (I believe) 17 pounds of fat and gained 1.5 pounds of muscle in around 16 weeks. I got my stats measured on the University "bod-pod" before and after my diet.
Here is all I did:
1) Determine my maintenance calories (13 - 15 * body weight). Use 13 multiple if you have a slow metabolism. 15 multiple if high metabolism.
2) Eat no less than 80% and no more than 90% of maintenance calories.
3) Do HIIT training. This training must be increased throughout the diet.
4) Weight train so the loss is fat and not muscle
5) Expect to lose about an average of 1 pound / week in a non-linear fashion.
I got stuck 2 or 3 times. I was really starving and felt weak. To unstick myself, I had "gorge days". But, only 2 or 3 in a 4 month period. I had read about this. I don't know if it is scientific, but it worked for me. But, I was really run down and fatigued. I was hitting the cardio hard and probably was dipping below the 80% of maintenance calories at times.
I am not saying that gorge days are a silver bullet. They may or may not work for you. I am only saying that in a test case of 1 (me) it worked.
Take it for what it is worth.
I will definately side with Rickson in saying that doing a gorge day every week would be a disaster. Once a month may even be too often. For me, it was only when I was really stuck. It was one day (well, actually just one very large meal). And, I never let up on my cardio or my weight training. That stayed consistent.
Last edited:
Apparently you still don't understand despite all the info I've given. I see by your posts that you are a 17 yr old who has often been accused of being a bratty kid who thinks he "knows it all". You've proven this once again. I also see you're interested in studying kinesiology. After a couple years of university, I think you'll understand what we're talking about here.
Incidently, your own "model" is again, astonishingly simplistic. They don't lose the weight because they don't have that much body fat and thus they will choose not to continue calorie restriction?
1.the body has homeostatic machanisms that can do a great deal of compensating for calorie restriction
2.weight loss will NOT come only from adipose tissue, sadly.
3. As I pointed out, you can easily find documentation of severe, extended calorie restriction, in many cases WELL over 500+ calories per day. And this is in "science"! In the real-world there are innumerable examples, you just have to think about it.
PS. This attitude is not going to cut it in univerisity. You are short-circuiting your own learning by not reading/listening to others and/or using critical thought. Just saying "OMG, I don't get it! What a joke!" is shameful.
I see you are indeed, the same as always. If you disagree with anything I've said, just specifically quote it and state your reasoning. I can elaborate on it. Not able to do that? That's what I thought.
And yes, individual who calls themselves "Rickson Gracie", it is hard to believe your 3.5 friend volleys better than Roddick but of course, seeing that requires:
1.knowledge/experience in tennis
2.common sense
Rickson
G.O.A.T.
Listen, betty. If I told you I shoot foul shots better than Shaq, would you say it was impossible because he's a pro? I make 85% of my foul shots and the last time I checked, Shaq wasn't even close to 80%. Just because he's a pro doesn't mean he's good at all facets of the game. Roddick is a pro tennis player, but that doesn't mean an amateur can't volley better than he can, but perhaps you're too simple to understand that.
Wonderful! It could not be anymore plain than this! Don't change the argument though! We're not talking about finding any amateur in the world. It's your buddy Gino. The 3.5 you hack around with who cleans your clock!
I am certain Gino would do very well at the net against a serious Federer, and by that I mean he'd succeed well in hurting his neck watching balls go by him and using his face his as a backstop...
Moz
Hall of Fame
This seems to be a relatively common fallacy. We are all individuals but with regard to the calories burned at various running speeds there are 2 important issues:
1) When you perform a continuous exercise, you apparently burn five calories for every liter of oxygen you consume. You will burn more calories at faster running speeds, according to US Army:
Running at 5 MPH burns .064 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 6 MPH burns .079 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 10 MPH burns .10 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 12 MPH burns .13 calories per minute per pound of body weight
In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking.
The University of Texas found that running at 50% of your maximum heart rate burned 7 cals per minute while the same group at 75% of their mhr burned twice that.
2) Where the issue is complicated is where the calories actually come from. The University of Texas found that between 50 and 60% of your MHR 90% of calories were burned from fat whereas at 75% of your MHR only 60% of calories were burned from fat due to the body switching to carbs.
The implications should be obvious here.
Last edited:
OH! Now he plays 5.0 eh? LOL. Well you've changed the story and just a post ago you were claiming there is nothing unbelievable about a 3.5 outvolleying Roddick, Gino must have practiced a great deal inbetween those 2 posts!
Which implications Moz? I think your #2 issue is actually way to complex to be answered at this point, in terms of ultimate fat burning.(since that seems to be the most common goal). That one does, as you mention, get VERY complicated and at this point, I don't think we have a sophisticated enough physiological model to make a definitive statement on that one. Do you have a take on that?
The data you listed were interesting, a couple notes:
1.I wonder what the army's testing procedure was and how much data they got beyond the ones you listed. In the categories you listed, the 6mph runners were in the maximum calorie burning range per mile.
2. the syracuse university study does not sound good for our purposes. while running at various speeds may indeed entail biomechanical differences affecting energy expenditure, walking undoubtedly does, dramatically! A very qualitatively different movement as it's usually defined.
3.do you happen to have a link to the university of texas study you cited? Wouldn't mind taking a peak at that and seeing if they found any substantial differences in calories burned per mile.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=8166&highlight=rickson+gino
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=9189&highlight=rickson+gino
In the first 3 threads I looked at, it seems you were asked repeatedly for Gino's credentials and never ever supplied them. Still, they were well worth reading if only to highlight the hilarity of your judgment! RECOMMENDED
"Forget about the fact that he's a pro and that he's improving his net game, can you volley better than one of the worst volleyers in men's pro tennis? I play with someone who is immensely better than Roddick at the net, but like every other amateur out there, he'd get demolished by Roddick in a match. How many of you volley better than Roddick? I don't think it's the most difficult task to accomplish."
"Gino has volleyed back some shots I've seen Roddick loop at best."
LOL
Last edited:
Gmedlo
Professional
I thought you were actually taking into account the decreased BMR with the lower weight, so you just sounded like a stickler to me :lol:
I guess it's partly my bad, sorry.
Moz
Hall of Fame
Hi Bet
Agreed it's complicated - made worse by the fact that everyone has different optimal fat burning zones. Here's an interesting article on them:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0690.htm
I guess all you can do is use the averages and, to burn fat, try and train at that level.
The implications from my point of view are you must firstly have a clear purpose for the workout. Once you have that you could work out the best intensity for you. The quote at the end suggests a higher intensity burns the same number of fat calories but more carb calories to increase the overall calorie burn. I would think you are better off at the slower speed - BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS YOU TO RUN FOR LONGER.
1. Yes, I'm not sure how detailed the study was. It would be interesting as you would hope that the army is the organisation with the best motivation to find out the real answer as I would assume it would feed into MRE's for soldiers in the field etc....
2. Agreed on that - just thought I'd throw it out there.
3. I got those figures from a training book that referred to the study and the author didn't put in a bloody reference to the name of the study. I have managed to track down this which mentions a book (bolded) which it infers contains the data:
"Professors Jack H.Wilmore (University of Texas at Austin) and David L. Costill (Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana) expose the fat burn fallacy in their beautifully designed textbook Physiology of Sport and Exercise (Human Kinetics, 1994): "Low-intensity aerobic activity does not necessarily lead to a greater expenditure of calories from fat. More importantly, the total caloric expenditure for a given period of time is much less when compared with high-intensity aerobic activity."
To illustrate they give the example of a 23-year-old woman who exercised for 30 minutes at 50% of her VO2 max on one day, and for 30 minutes at 75% on another. The total calories from fat were the same - in both sessions she burned 110 calories of fat. Most importantly, however, in the higher intensity workout she expended about 50% more calories for the same time period, 220 total calories for the 50% intensity workout and 332 for the 75% session."
http://www.cbass.com/FAQ.HTM
Hey, thanks Moz. Yes, it is complicated. Agree with much of what you said.
I'll never understand a "prof" who can say things like that last example! Like he's debunking some myth with his really nonsensical comparison and obvious insight. If your only goal is directly burning fat from exercise, (I am NOT a big fan of this paradigm/goal), it's hardly an even trade to exercise at 75% vs 50%! ;-)
I'll never understand a "prof" who can say things like that last example! Like he's debunking some myth with his really nonsensical comparison and obvious insight. If your only goal is directly burning fat from exercise, (I am NOT a big fan of this paradigm/goal), it's hardly an even trade to exercise at 75% vs 50%! ;-)
