Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Standard Western breakfast? I guess Europe isn't in "the West" any more

[Knight of Fools]

I assumed America inherited most of its breakfast habits from Europe. :S

Now I'm having a hard time imagining what folks eat overseas...

[Neonivek]

Honestly lets just say that I am not surprised most people hate breakfast.

Anyhow the key is that the "Super carb heavy breakfast" wasn't necessarily a bad thing especially in light of the light lunch and often heavy labor.

They key is that for a sedimentary lifestyle and a decent lunch it starts to weight heavily on you.

Breakfast also has the WORST FOODS you eat.

[Aseaheru]

Bowls of fruit man, bowl of fruit.

That and normally lunch was what we call a snack.

[Reudh]

Honestly lets just say that I am not surprised most people hate breakfast.

Anyhow the key is that the "Super carb heavy breakfast" wasn't necessarily a bad thing especially in light of the light lunch and often heavy labor.

They key is that for a sedimentary lifestyle and a decent lunch it starts to weight heavily on you.

Breakfast also has the WORST FOODS you eat.

A lifestyle in which small minerals clump and compact to form a larger solid mineral?

I assume you meant sedentary

[gogis]

Several experts have stated that while running can cause joint damage if done improperly, most people who claim running causes joint damage have previous injuries or arthritis - Neither of which are caused directly by running, but are sure indicators that a person shouldn't be running. That doesn't make running bad for people who don't have those problems. In fact, running may help people who are in danger of developing arthritis later in life.

You're also wrong in that weight lifting burns more calories. This weight calculator even puts jogging over "vigorous weightlifting" for calories burned. Other sources drop running a mile at burning about 100 calories for every mile. I found one good article on calories burned lifting weights here, which puts lifting weights at burning 250 - 450 calories an hour depending on the intensity. If you run about a mile in ten minutes, you'll burn 1000 calories in an hour. That's two to four times the number of calories burned, and a ten-minute mile isn't considered all that fast. You won't look like the Terminator if all you do is run, but there are worse things you could do for your health.

Concerning sub optimal workouts, that last article also mentions this: "... research has indicated that combining cardio with regular weight training burns more fat " - IE Calories - " overall than if you just performed weight training alone, or only cardio." So yes, his workout isn't optimal for burning calories. Just not in the way you're claiming.

Also, BMI isn't the way determine whether someone is a healthy weight or not. There's a lot more factors than BMI takes into account. Sure, BMI is an indicator of health, but it doesn't tell you how healthy you are. It ignores heart health, diet, and doesn't differentiate between fat and muscle. Rather than stressing over your BMI, it'd be better to just focus on being healthier in general - Aim to keep your fat levels healthy, exercise, eat well, and you'll be alright. Your exercise and diet shouldn't start and end with making your BMI "ideal". This article talks a bit about it.


It's pure science - Now with citations.

Go here
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/DietaryGuidelines.html

This site is universally outside of search engines, beside being best of all. Every "rationale" articles have it scientific study under it, which you can google and examine afterwards. You wont find it searching "anaerobic vs aerobic", although it will be relevant to me, not to you. But. Just read proper sources. There is shitload of science, but you able to comply if you interested. Every study can be confirmed by extra search. Enjoy

[Knight of Fools]

That... Has nothing to do with what I was talking about. That's all about diet. I was specifically talking about calories burned doing different exercises.

[gogis]

That... Has nothing to do with what I was talking about. That's all about diet. I was specifically talking about calories burned doing different exercises.

You got to be kidding me, I said it's on this site.
The major hint is there
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/Exercise.html, scroll down to
One pound of muscle can burn 30 to 50 Calories a day
One pound of fat burns only 3 Calories a day

It's still same site and you can use some clicking for more information, don't be lazy. Then read carefully aerobic and anaerobic sections. Thoroughly, every bit. Then take calculator, apply all gained knowledge and make your assumptions.

I realize that it's much easier to read some fancy populist blog about how X better than Y, and reading dead pan delivery wall of text without any closure is excruciatingly boring, but thruth *is* there

[Knight of Fools]

...Dude, chill. You notice how I linked directly to my sources that proved my point in my post? That's how you're supposed to do it. You don't say, "just look for it, it's there". That's now how citing your sources works in any setting.

Second off, if you notice from my previous post, running burns two to four times as many calories as lifting. When you're burning that much from an exercise, lifting weights to burn calories with your muscle isn't even a factor - And like I said, both lifting weights and running together burns the most calories.

That site only references itself, and it's the only site you seem to accept as fact. I referenced several sources that themselves reference several sources, and wrote ten times as much as you have proving my point. That's hardly lazy.

Also, just a simple Google search turned up several articles with citations that question what your site says. Turns out there's no reliable source for muscle burning so many calories a day, and it trends towards only being about two to three times what fat burns, landing at about 4 - 13 calories a day per pound, depending on the source. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.

That doesn't mean that weight lifting isn't important. I've mentioned I don't know how many times that the key to being in good shape is a well rounded exercise routine and a healthy diet. But muscle isn't the fat burning machine you're claiming it is.

[Aseaheru]

Gogis, normally you need lots of sources for things to be accepted... Else irrefutable proof.

[Knight of Fools]

It has nothing to do with providing irrefutable evidence, it has to do with providing information that isn't based on pure hearsay. This isn't college, but we can (And should) provide evidence to support our claims. I was just pointing out that while I could find several articles debunking his argument and which included their own citations, his only evidence was a single site that only references itself. You're not going to become informed if you just use a single source of information for everything.

This is a public forum: If you can't back up your facts, don't state them as fact. The health and exercise community is inundated with half-truths and baseless claims as it is. I think it's important that people keep others and themselves informed, while shooting down myths that have been perpetuated and can potentially harm someone.

[Draignean]

It has nothing to do with providing irrefutable evidence, it has to do with providing information that isn't based on pure hearsay. This isn't college, but we can (And should) provide evidence to support our claims. I was just pointing out that while I could find several articles debunking his argument and which included their own citations, his only evidence was a single site that only references itself. You're not going to become informed if you just use a single source of information for everything.

This is a public forum: If you can't back up your facts, don't state them as fact. The health and exercise community is inundated with half-truths and baseless claims as it is. I think it's important that people keep others and themselves informed, while shooting down myths that have been perpetuated and can potentially harm someone.

In addition to this point, irrefutable proof does not an irrefutable conclusion make.  Case in point, today I dropped into the 280's (The very high 280's). I live on one meal a day, eaten at Which Wich. I don't really exercise, except the occasional set of sprints with friends (which are fun, and a hell of a lot more of a full body work out than you would ever anticipate*), and I have the sleeping habits of a college student.

It is irrefutable that I am losing weight. It is irrefutable that I am doing the things that I am doing. It is not, however, an irrefutable point that what I'm doing is a good way to lose weight or even moderately healthy. Combining two irrefutable statements (Weight lifting builds more muscle than cardio, muscle burns calories), does not an irrefutable conclusion make. (Weight lifting burns more calories than cardio.)

Anyway, thus endeth my rant on irrefutable conclusions and my minor update.

*Particularly when you're not running in a straight line. Why did we ever stop playing tag?

[Knight of Fools]

I am irrefutably confused.

[Draignean]

I am irrefutably confused.

Ha, just saying that just because something is true, and something else is true, doesn't mean that any conclusion drawn from the two truths are necessarily true. I essentially stated a faulty-cause logical fallacy in an overly complex way.

[gogis]

...Dude, chill. You notice how I linked directly to my sources that proved my point in my post? That's how you're supposed to do it. You don't say, "just look for it, it's there". That's now how citing your sources works in any setting.

Second off, if you notice from my previous post, running burns two to four times as many calories as lifting. When you're burning that much from an exercise, lifting weights to burn calories with your muscle isn't even a factor - And like I said, both lifting weights and running together burns the most calories.

That site only references itself, and it's the only site you seem to accept as fact. I referenced several sources that themselves reference several sources, and wrote ten times as much as you have proving my point. That's hardly lazy.

Also, just a simple Google search turned up several articles with citations that question what your site says. Turns out there's no reliable source for muscle burning so many calories a day, and it trends towards only being about two to three times what fat burns, landing at about 4 - 13 calories a day per pound, depending on the source. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.

That doesn't mean that weight lifting isn't important. I've mentioned I don't know how many times that the key to being in good shape is a well rounded exercise routine and a healthy diet. But muscle isn't the fat burning machine you're claiming it is.

I like how you specifically search stuff to refute my argument. You realise that it's very easy to refute ANY argument? Real problem is, I was once obsessed with dietary/workout shit and eventually, through clear evidence all of I am saying in this topic was thruth. Let's say for me, ok.

I was playing soccer for 3 years, I was slim, but have an average body fat, nothing ripped. It was a relaxed, pure cardio activity, but I never got anything substantial but pretty hefty quads and hams. My usual stint was 2-3 hours of playing (I love soccer). Quite a time investment, yes?

Then I went into weightlifting, at my early twenties I was at horrid 65 kg at 177cm height, basically a skeleton. In a half of a year I gained  about 15kg, lost some fat, gained alot of muscle. I ate whey protein, plenty of eggs and chicken, trained 3 times a week * 1hour, big three (squat + deadlift + bench) usual route. Then I got bored, stopped exercizing and diet and you know what happened? I started to lose muscle. But fat loss was even higher. Body does not burn muscle as priority, I know that because I was seeing that. On myself. Not searching some google for refute.

Then later after ten years I again went into weightlifting stint. It was not about losing fat, I dont care about that, I had a severe back pain, so I went 3 times a week 6-12*3 reps with my meager 25kg*2 kettlebells doing trusty squat-deadlift-bench routine. After work, 45 mins tops, at home. After 3 months I stopped, back is not aching anymore, and surprise! I lost 8 kg. Untouched diet. 92->84 kg. And I didnt even cared about weight loss.

I am not going to change my mind because somebody found something on some page. It's worked to me. 45 mins at home vs 3-6-10 miles outside? No contest.

And you also forgot to mention the post effect of weight lifting. Burning energy afterwards. Completely relaxed. Which cardio doesnt have.