9 ms·

why is food always the culprit? what ever happened to just increasing the amount of exercise you do? Michael Phelps seems to be doing ok on 10,000+ calories a d

by brm 18y ago

why is food always the culprit? what ever happened to just increasing the amount of exercise you do? Michael Phelps seems to be doing ok on 10,000+ calories a day This also bothers me: "But what’s different about Arthur is, first, he is not selling anything, except for subscriptions to his website."

Tichy 18y ago
Swimming 6 hours a day is simply not an option for everybody. Besides, even with enough exercise I would imagine that some diets would still make you sick, for example if all you ate were chocolate and ice cream. (Note that I don't advocate the low-carb diet from the article). The "not selling anything but..." bothered me too, also "Thirdly, he is very smart. His reasoning is immaculate and he knows a lot more than your average doctor or nutritionist." The doctors on TV trying to sell me on chocolate bars also look very smart...
- brm 18y ago
  yes I agree that 6 hours is unreasonable, but 90 minutes a couple times a week would probably have people in a lot better fitness than removing all the carbs from their diet. Frankly moving up from the 0 minutes most people get to 30 minutes a couple times a week would be more beneficial to most people than a change in diet.
  - subwindow 18y ago
    And if you read the article, you would have seen: "You must have a playful, intermittent form of exercise. And you must exercise. The benefits are profound. Make it fun, intense according to your own fitness and goals, and brief. Brevity and intensity are keys. Intensity means a little burn in the muscle, not heaving and straining. Brevity means you do not release stress hormones." He agrees with you.
gaius 18y ago
Because, unless you are very genetically gifted and/or using steroids, there are surprisingly low limits on the amount of exercise you can do and still see gains. After 45 minutes or so cortisol (stress hormone) levels rise and a process called gluconeogenesis sets in - your body begins burning muscle tissue for energy. The net effect of this is to lower your resting metabolic rate, which is what burns most of most people's calories. Which means you can cut back on the calories you consume, train like a madman and still get fatter. 3-4 sessions of 45 minutes per week, at a decent level of intensity, is about right for most people.
- brm 18y ago
  Let me get this straight... you're claiming that after 45 minutes of moderately intense cardiovascular exercise, most people begin to see negative fitness effects?
  - gaius 18y ago
    I don't see the phrase moderately intense cardiovascular exercise in my comment. Head on over to t-nation.com and read some of their articles on training.
    - unexpected 18y ago
      this explains why marathon runners are so fat.
      - gaius 18y ago
        Heh, you see plenty of fat people at marathons, if you've ever run one, and plenty of 'em finish too.
        unexpected 18y ago
        I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, you may burn muscle, but it's not like you're going to all together stop burning fat. In fact, when you hit glycogen depletion (the 'hitting the wall'), your body will switch energy burning modes entirely, and start burning a TON of fat. I'm nit-picky about your statement because America, as a whole is in such a crisis. We look for any excuse to get out of exercise. Those idiots at the gym lifting 10 lb weights? Do you really think they're getting a good workout? They're not lifting heavy, and they can go far longer than 45 min doing 7 lb arm curls. What about those on the treadmill, walking for 45 minutes while talking on the cell phone? As a society, we've become too used to everything being easy- we want an easy job with lots of money, we want to consume everything, and we want to be able to eat what we want, and just have the pounds come off. Losing weight is hard. It takes discipline and focus. Now, especially in the two weeks of the Olympics, we should be able to collectively get off our fat asses and look at what some Americans have been able to accomplish with a ton of hard work and sacrifice. Think Michael Phelps works out 45 min a day? All those gymnasts? Tyson Gay? So maybe you should step back, realize there's more to life than T-nation, and look at actual exercise science. T-Nation is the equivalent of looking at some IT trade magazine talking about Java applets and their Web 2.0 capabilities. Yeah, it can be done. Is it the best tool for the job? No.
streety 18y ago
Don't worry about the not selling anything bit. It's total nonsense. He is selling a 4 DVD set for $139.95
enra 18y ago
I don't agree. Calories are not treated equal and it's not only about staying not-fat eather but also promoting health. Calories are not just some unified fuel that you put in to your system. Your body needs to process different foods differently.
scott_s 18y ago
Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    Clearly, when he stops swimming 120 miles a week, he needs to eat less. I doubt that's too much of a problem; some people can listen to what their bodies are telling them and eat accordingly. I can, so I bet an elite athlete can. But I'm unclear on what you think is terrible for him, long term. His diet or the training? Keep in mind his diet is what his body needs right now. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening to their bodies and eating accordingly. There's a lot more to eating than simply being hungry. It's very much a habit. Google around for the psychology of eating, it's actually mind-boggling how complex and deeply rooted in our psyche it is. (Actually, most bodily functions go a lot deeper than we think.) Ex-athletes are often very overweight specifically for that reason. They stop the exercise but not the eating.
      - scott_s 18y ago
mattmaroon 18y ago
Let's check back in on Phelps in 20 years. If he's lucky, his current lifestyle won't have lasting effects.
- unexpected 18y ago
  On a related note, I met someone who swam for the US team in 1996. I won't name him or his event b/c it'd be mean to identify him, but let's just say the ensuing 12 years have done absolutely horrifying things to his waistline. When I met him, I thought that there was no way he could be a swimmer!
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Ha, yeah. That happens to a lot of athletes. It's a lot easier to stop swimming for 6 hours a day than it is to stop eating whatever the hell you want 6 meals a day. Also there's a lot of evidence that all of that drastically increased metabolism basically burns years off of their lives.

by brm 18y ago

Tichy 18y ago

Swimming 6 hours a day is simply not an option for everybody. Besides, even with enough exercise I would imagine that some diets would still make you sick, for example if all you ate were chocolate and ice cream. (Note that I don't advocate the low-carb diet from the article). The "not selling anything but..." bothered me too, also "Thirdly, he is very smart. His reasoning is immaculate and he knows a lot more than your average doctor or nutritionist." The doctors on TV trying to sell me on chocolate bars also look very smart...

brm 18y ago
yes I agree that 6 hours is unreasonable, but 90 minutes a couple times a week would probably have people in a lot better fitness than removing all the carbs from their diet. Frankly moving up from the 0 minutes most people get to 30 minutes a couple times a week would be more beneficial to most people than a change in diet.
- subwindow 18y ago
  And if you read the article, you would have seen: "You must have a playful, intermittent form of exercise. And you must exercise. The benefits are profound. Make it fun, intense according to your own fitness and goals, and brief. Brevity and intensity are keys. Intensity means a little burn in the muscle, not heaving and straining. Brevity means you do not release stress hormones." He agrees with you.

gaius 18y ago

Because, unless you are very genetically gifted and/or using steroids, there are surprisingly low limits on the amount of exercise you can do and still see gains. After 45 minutes or so cortisol (stress hormone) levels rise and a process called gluconeogenesis sets in - your body begins burning muscle tissue for energy. The net effect of this is to lower your resting metabolic rate, which is what burns most of most people's calories. Which means you can cut back on the calories you consume, train like a madman and still get fatter. 3-4 sessions of 45 minutes per week, at a decent level of intensity, is about right for most people.

brm 18y ago
Let me get this straight... you're claiming that after 45 minutes of moderately intense cardiovascular exercise, most people begin to see negative fitness effects?
- gaius 18y ago
  I don't see the phrase moderately intense cardiovascular exercise in my comment. Head on over to t-nation.com and read some of their articles on training.
  - unexpected 18y ago
    this explains why marathon runners are so fat.
    - gaius 18y ago
      Heh, you see plenty of fat people at marathons, if you've ever run one, and plenty of 'em finish too.
      - unexpected 18y ago
        I've read every article on t-nation, I work out >20 hours a week, and I train for triathlons and marathons. That being said, your statement is unfounded. If you're LIFTING, and lifting HEAVY, then yes, it doesn't make sense to go for more than 45 minutes, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, cardio? People will see huge cardio benefits if they run for a long time. There's no "negative fitness effect." Yes, you may burn muscle, but it's not like you're going to all together stop burning fat. In fact, when you hit glycogen depletion (the 'hitting the wall'), your body will switch energy burning modes entirely, and start burning a TON of fat. I'm nit-picky about your statement because America, as a whole is in such a crisis. We look for any excuse to get out of exercise. Those idiots at the gym lifting 10 lb weights? Do you really think they're getting a good workout? They're not lifting heavy, and they can go far longer than 45 min doing 7 lb arm curls. What about those on the treadmill, walking for 45 minutes while talking on the cell phone? As a society, we've become too used to everything being easy- we want an easy job with lots of money, we want to consume everything, and we want to be able to eat what we want, and just have the pounds come off. Losing weight is hard. It takes discipline and focus. Now, especially in the two weeks of the Olympics, we should be able to collectively get off our fat asses and look at what some Americans have been able to accomplish with a ton of hard work and sacrifice. Think Michael Phelps works out 45 min a day? All those gymnasts? Tyson Gay? So maybe you should step back, realize there's more to life than T-nation, and look at actual exercise science. T-Nation is the equivalent of looking at some IT trade magazine talking about Java applets and their Web 2.0 capabilities. Yeah, it can be done. Is it the best tool for the job? No.

streety 18y ago

Don't worry about the not selling anything bit. It's total nonsense. He is selling a 4 DVD set for $139.95

enra 18y ago

I don't agree. Calories are not treated equal and it's not only about staying not-fat eather but also promoting health. Calories are not just some unified fuel that you put in to your system. Your body needs to process different foods differently.

scott_s 18y ago

Michael Phelps also swims 120 miles a week. He eats 10,000+ calories a day because that's how much energy he needs to maintain weight and muscle mass.

mattmaroon 18y ago
And it's not healthy long-term. His diet is designed to make him win Olympic gold in his early 20's, not to achieve a long, healthy life. The only reason any swimmers ever live past 40 is that they stop doing this well before 30.
- scott_s 18y ago
  Clearly, when he stops swimming 120 miles a week, he needs to eat less. I doubt that's too much of a problem; some people can listen to what their bodies are telling them and eat accordingly. I can, so I bet an elite athlete can. But I'm unclear on what you think is terrible for him, long term. His diet or the training? Keep in mind his diet is what his body needs right now. I don't know what you're basing your conclusions on.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    Science seems to be showing that your longevity is largely based on your metabolism. It's perhaps less accurate to think of a human's average lifespan in terms of years rather than in terms of calories burned. Eating and then burning 10k calories a day probably ages you significantly faster than eating and burning 2k calories, possibly even 5x. Also, most people, including elite athletes, are very poor at listening to their bodies and eating accordingly. There's a lot more to eating than simply being hungry. It's very much a habit. Google around for the psychology of eating, it's actually mind-boggling how complex and deeply rooted in our psyche it is. (Actually, most bodily functions go a lot deeper than we think.) Ex-athletes are often very overweight specifically for that reason. They stop the exercise but not the eating.
    - scott_s 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

Let's check back in on Phelps in 20 years. If he's lucky, his current lifestyle won't have lasting effects.

unexpected 18y ago
On a related note, I met someone who swam for the US team in 1996. I won't name him or his event b/c it'd be mean to identify him, but let's just say the ensuing 12 years have done absolutely horrifying things to his waistline. When I met him, I thought that there was no way he could be a swimmer!
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Ha, yeah. That happens to a lot of athletes. It's a lot easier to stop swimming for 6 hours a day than it is to stop eating whatever the hell you want 6 meals a day. Also there's a lot of evidence that all of that drastically increased metabolism basically burns years off of their lives.