6 ms·

Am I the only one who eagerly clicked through hoping that through some scientific miracle drinking scotch could lead to weight loss? As to the actual topic, I'

Am I the only one who eagerly clicked through hoping that through some scientific miracle drinking scotch could lead to weight loss? As to the actual topic, I'm not sure that its so much that people think scotch has a higher alcohol content, I've always imagined it had more to do with seeming somewhat classier and in control. Sipping a scotch while your companions pound beers establishes you (perhaps on a subconscious level) as the leader of the group whose choices aren't really up for discussion. Of course I rather like scotch so maybe I'm biased.

varjag 16y ago
Hard liquor abuse actually leads to weight loss. Plenty of alcoholics are dried out like raisins.
- gaius 16y ago
  But no-one really wants weight loss, and that should be easy to prove: say you were offered a choice, drop 5lbs of fat or convert 5lbs of fat to 10lbs of muscle, what would you do?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - nl 16y ago
    Really? The only time I'd have taken the additional weight is when I was playing rugby, and then mostly because I couldn't really afford much food. I was 20, 65kg and worked really hard to try and get to 70kg. Being hit hurt when I was that light (ok, it hurt at 70kg too, but at least then the other guy noticed me when he ran over me) I think anyone into endurance sports would take the weight loss too (based on the running & cycling I've done).
    - gaius 16y ago
      The point I was making along the lines of, just because a heavy drinker might be quite slender, it doesn't imply that they're healthy. They've lost their muscle mass along with their fat. PS I am a Marathon runner and I'd take the muscle... And have you seen the quads on a serious cyclist?
      - Retric 16y ago
        Cyclist's and Marathoners have significantly different needs. A Cyclist is primarily limited by wind resistance and their ability to absorb oxygen, but they do not need to carry their own weight. A Marathoner has far less wind drag, and is mostly limited by their need to store energy and avoid injury both of which are hampered when they carry more weight.
        gaius 16y ago
        On the contrary, we do need strength - without it your form will go to pieces as soon as you tire and your gait will become much less efficient, and increase your risk of injury. 10lbs of muscle on your back, core and hips could make a massive difference. Obviously a Marathon runner wouldn't be interested in adding 100lbs of muscle the way a bodybuilder would.
        Retric 16y ago
        I agree that core strenght tends to be undervalued, but you will not see a top marathoner with a leg that is quite this size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_Of_California_Prologue_2008_(1).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_O... Form, effecency, and power are important for both sports. However, cyclists focus more on power output.
        jdietrich 16y ago
        It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.
    - jules 16y ago
      I'm into running & cycling and I'd definitely take the muscles. Why exactly makes you think that an endurance sporter would take the weight loss?
      - nl 16y ago
        Well, most cyclists (except for track sprinters) aim to be as light as possible. Thus, at the elite level, one expects superior performance from smaller athletes in aerobic events where power requirements are approximately proportional to body mass--such as distance running and uphill cycling. (Technically, the power requirement scales more closely to mass, i.e. M0.76-M0.79 than does the power supply, M0.67; Swain, 1994). It is not surprising that the pre-eminent climber of the 1990s, Marco Pantani, is one of the smallest men in the peloton at only 55 kg. Anything that can be done to reduce the weight of a cyclist and bicycle, without compromising the cyclist's aerobic power, will improve hill-climbing performance. http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html
        jules 16y ago
        Yep, but most of us are nowhere near that level where we have so much that more muscle is a disadvantage ;) I guess it's highly dependent on how you currently are. Someone who does weightlifting in a gym could probably indeed improve his cycling performance just by removing muscle. And of course sports performance is not the only criterion for choosing +5lbs muscle vs -5lbs fat ;)
  - stoney 16y ago
    That depends on my starting weight. If I weigh 120lbs then I'll take the muscle. If I weigh 220lbs then I'll take the weight loss.
    - hnal943 16y ago
      It shouldn't. His point is that if you're 220, what you really want to lose is fat, not weight. Having more muscle will increase your caloric burn rate and actually help you to lose fat faster. This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise. To take the argument to an absurd extreme, the fastest way to lose weight would be to cut off your leg. Obviously "losing weight" is really a euphemism for "losing fat."
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikeklaas 16y ago
        > This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise. No it mustn't. A lot of people have difficulty with the increased appetite that ensues.
    - whyme 16y ago
      It's never that easy. If your 6 foot 4 inches, at 220lbs, your probably fairly thin and may want to add muscle. In the end if you have very little muscle, regardless of weight, you should add it. It will help you lose fat (ie ripping muscles speeds up your metabolism - yes, but most importantly the burn effect lasts much, much longer than an equivalent amount of endurance work). Also you'll have more energy to do more activities allowing you to lose more fat.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Definitely take the 5lbs of fat as 10lbs of muscle. I work in construction, I'm already muscular and always have been, however I'm struggling with weight I gained when I was forced to be unemployed during my Canadian immigration (they wouldn't give me a work visa despite job shortages in the construction sector and my employer meeting all the criteria to hire from outside Canada and they weren't obligated to give a reason why). I've lost a lot, and I've turned even more of it into muscle. I'd take the 10lbs of muscle, because most people wouldn't believe how much better it makes you feel doing regular things. I'm seriously like a pack-mule coming out of a supermarket. I don't struggle like I used to, which means I don't get tired like I used to. Sure it would be great to be lean, but my body type would never allow it, it would be unhealthy.
- rue 16y ago
  That might also be because they do not eat much?
  - varjag 16y ago
    This is no doubt part of it, but beer drunkards tend to be quite the opposite. I think it's a combination of malnutrition, chronic dehydration and impact on metabolism.
- garret 16y ago
  Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I'll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.

varjag 16y ago

Hard liquor abuse actually leads to weight loss. Plenty of alcoholics are dried out like raisins.

gaius 16y ago
But no-one really wants weight loss, and that should be easy to prove: say you were offered a choice, drop 5lbs of fat or convert 5lbs of fat to 10lbs of muscle, what would you do?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 16y ago
  Really? The only time I'd have taken the additional weight is when I was playing rugby, and then mostly because I couldn't really afford much food. I was 20, 65kg and worked really hard to try and get to 70kg. Being hit hurt when I was that light (ok, it hurt at 70kg too, but at least then the other guy noticed me when he ran over me) I think anyone into endurance sports would take the weight loss too (based on the running & cycling I've done).
  - gaius 16y ago
    The point I was making along the lines of, just because a heavy drinker might be quite slender, it doesn't imply that they're healthy. They've lost their muscle mass along with their fat. PS I am a Marathon runner and I'd take the muscle... And have you seen the quads on a serious cyclist?
    - Retric 16y ago
      Cyclist's and Marathoners have significantly different needs. A Cyclist is primarily limited by wind resistance and their ability to absorb oxygen, but they do not need to carry their own weight. A Marathoner has far less wind drag, and is mostly limited by their need to store energy and avoid injury both of which are hampered when they carry more weight.
      - gaius 16y ago
        On the contrary, we do need strength - without it your form will go to pieces as soon as you tire and your gait will become much less efficient, and increase your risk of injury. 10lbs of muscle on your back, core and hips could make a massive difference. Obviously a Marathon runner wouldn't be interested in adding 100lbs of muscle the way a bodybuilder would.
        Retric 16y ago
        I agree that core strenght tends to be undervalued, but you will not see a top marathoner with a leg that is quite this size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_Of_California_Prologue_2008_(1).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Cancellara_-_Tour_O... Form, effecency, and power are important for both sports. However, cyclists focus more on power output.
        jdietrich 16y ago
        It should be noted that at 80kg, Fabian Cancellara is considered much too heavy to ever win a grand tour. He is spectacularly fast on the flat because he is only slightly less aerodynamic than a much smaller and less powerful man, but he is quickly overpowered on a mountain stage by lighter riders.
  - jules 16y ago
    I'm into running & cycling and I'd definitely take the muscles. Why exactly makes you think that an endurance sporter would take the weight loss?
    - nl 16y ago
      Well, most cyclists (except for track sprinters) aim to be as light as possible. Thus, at the elite level, one expects superior performance from smaller athletes in aerobic events where power requirements are approximately proportional to body mass--such as distance running and uphill cycling. (Technically, the power requirement scales more closely to mass, i.e. M0.76-M0.79 than does the power supply, M0.67; Swain, 1994). It is not surprising that the pre-eminent climber of the 1990s, Marco Pantani, is one of the smallest men in the peloton at only 55 kg. Anything that can be done to reduce the weight of a cyclist and bicycle, without compromising the cyclist's aerobic power, will improve hill-climbing performance. http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html
      - jules 16y ago
        Yep, but most of us are nowhere near that level where we have so much that more muscle is a disadvantage ;) I guess it's highly dependent on how you currently are. Someone who does weightlifting in a gym could probably indeed improve his cycling performance just by removing muscle. And of course sports performance is not the only criterion for choosing +5lbs muscle vs -5lbs fat ;)
- stoney 16y ago
  That depends on my starting weight. If I weigh 120lbs then I'll take the muscle. If I weigh 220lbs then I'll take the weight loss.
  - hnal943 16y ago
    It shouldn't. His point is that if you're 220, what you really want to lose is fat, not weight. Having more muscle will increase your caloric burn rate and actually help you to lose fat faster. This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise. To take the argument to an absurd extreme, the fastest way to lose weight would be to cut off your leg. Obviously "losing weight" is really a euphemism for "losing fat."
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikeklaas 16y ago
      > This is why dieting must always be paired with exercise. No it mustn't. A lot of people have difficulty with the increased appetite that ensues.
  - whyme 16y ago
    It's never that easy. If your 6 foot 4 inches, at 220lbs, your probably fairly thin and may want to add muscle. In the end if you have very little muscle, regardless of weight, you should add it. It will help you lose fat (ie ripping muscles speeds up your metabolism - yes, but most importantly the burn effect lasts much, much longer than an equivalent amount of endurance work). Also you'll have more energy to do more activities allowing you to lose more fat.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Definitely take the 5lbs of fat as 10lbs of muscle. I work in construction, I'm already muscular and always have been, however I'm struggling with weight I gained when I was forced to be unemployed during my Canadian immigration (they wouldn't give me a work visa despite job shortages in the construction sector and my employer meeting all the criteria to hire from outside Canada and they weren't obligated to give a reason why). I've lost a lot, and I've turned even more of it into muscle. I'd take the 10lbs of muscle, because most people wouldn't believe how much better it makes you feel doing regular things. I'm seriously like a pack-mule coming out of a supermarket. I don't struggle like I used to, which means I don't get tired like I used to. Sure it would be great to be lean, but my body type would never allow it, it would be unhealthy.
rue 16y ago
That might also be because they do not eat much?
- varjag 16y ago
  This is no doubt part of it, but beer drunkards tend to be quite the opposite. I think it's a combination of malnutrition, chronic dehydration and impact on metabolism.
garret 16y ago
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I'll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.