3 ms·

Other people have pointed out that the author's stated theory of calory intake isn't universally accepted Very little in nutrition is universally accepted. So

Other people have pointed out that the author's stated theory of calory intake isn't universally accepted Very little in nutrition is universally accepted. So why not do what's practically canon among modern athletes and bodybuilders - make healthy muscle development (or at least preservation) a primary goal of the diet/exercise regime. In other words, do the opposite of what all these beleaguered people are doing? Because it generally doesn't work for weight loss. Each additional pound of muscle will burn about 3 calories per day more than that pound of fat. So if you lose 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle (no small feat), that will net about 30 calories per day. Less than about 5 minutes of jogging. Adding muscle mass is great when you're already lean, which is why it makes sense for athletes and bodybuilders. But talk to NFL linemen who try to lose weight after they retire and you'll see that simply lifting weights isn't sufficient. They need to cut back on food and spend a lot of time running. And from people I know -- they'd much rather just lift weights.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
It's very true that losing 10lbs fat and gaining 10lbs muscle will only net 30 calories/day. So what? The goal isn't to get your weight below a certain number unless you are a boxer aiming for a weight class. The goal is to get a healthy body composition. I'm 6'5", and I weigh 242lb, for a BMI of 29. (Overweight is 25, obese is 30.) If you looked at me, you'd never guess I was overweight - the most you'd see is a little excess belly fat if I took my shirt off. On the other hand, I bench 170, squat 200 and press 120 (no deadlift due to back injury). When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA. Yes, I know my squat is low. And, like most people in the NBA, I'll be eating just as much as any fat guy. That's what gaining muscle buys you - it lets you eat as much as ever while being "that jacked guy" rather than "that fat guy". This also ignores the fact that to build and maintain the muscle, you are burning calories anaerobically, the same as you would if you were sprinting (slower running burns fewer calories, since it's primarily aerobic).
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I'm 6'5", and I weigh 242lb Remind me stop disagreeing with you. :-)
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    At 6'2", 265#, bouncers at bars call me "sir".
- rdouble 15y ago
  NBA players also play basketball 4 hours per day. You can't really eat whatever you want just cuz you can bench press 1/2 your bodyweight. Retired athletes tend to balloon up because they keep eating the same way they did when they were burning 8000 calories per day.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Hold diet fixed and start lifting weights. If you start at 6'5" and weigh 254lb, you might end up the same way. But you'll go from 45" waist and 12" bicep to a 34" waist and 20" biceps. In my book, that's a victory. (This assumes you eat sufficient protein - if the calories are all fat + carbs, this won't work.) [edit: to address rdouble's point, a 6'5" 254lb man who plays basketball also needs to eat more than the 6'5" 254lb man who doesn't, and cut back when he stops playing basketball. I never meant to dispute this.]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- Shorel 15y ago
  Because BMI is a crap measurement and you are not overweight, you are muscular.
- salsakran 15y ago
  You're not going to like hearing this, but unless those numbers are in kg's you're not likely to be "jacked". The reality is you're probably carrying significantly more fat than you think you are.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    Um, what I said: "...the most you'd see is a little excess belly fat if I took my shirt off..." I know I have some fat. I'll start stressing about it when my lifts stop going up, or when it becomes visibly excessive. As for being "jacked", I wasn't describing myself now, but rather a hypothetical future self. You can infer this based on my use of the future tense: "When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA...I'll be eating just as much..." I know I've got a long way to go. That's why I'm describing the future rather than the present.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA. Sadly, that's literally true in the US. The definition of obesity is dictated, by official US health policy, by BMI. Which means that every heavyweight bodybuilder on stage at the Mr. Olympia contest this past fall, at 4% body fat, is considered "obese" by official definitions. BMI is an absolutely crap measurement. It's readily and easily replaced by far more accurate and useful measures (circumference measures for starters). While BMI remains vaguely useful in making obesity estimates of populations based on height/weight datapoints readily available in existing databases, it never was, and was never meant by even its first modern revivalists, to be used as an individual measure of fitness. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1062684... http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/ http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/ http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html
saturdaysaint 15y ago
Yes, this is why I mentioned muscle preservation and focused on the hormonal impact of different kinds of exercise. The "calories-burned-per-muscle-pound theory" is probably a drastic simplification of the benefits of resistance training. Then again, the article in point shows that muscle mass isn't the only relevant metric - the article shows that changes in muscle quality (becoming more "slow twitch" in character) can have vast health implications. Conversely, it might follow, that nobody needs to gain a pound of muscle to accrue benefits from weight training.
xsmasher 15y ago
You're discounting the calories burned while lifting the weights. Running also gets easier as you lose weight, so you'll top out unless you add miles/time or speed.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

It's very true that losing 10lbs fat and gaining 10lbs muscle will only net 30 calories/day. So what? The goal isn't to get your weight below a certain number unless you are a boxer aiming for a weight class. The goal is to get a healthy body composition. I'm 6'5", and I weigh 242lb, for a BMI of 29. (Overweight is 25, obese is 30.) If you looked at me, you'd never guess I was overweight - the most you'd see is a little excess belly fat if I took my shirt off. On the other hand, I bench 170, squat 200 and press 120 (no deadlift due to back injury). When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA. Yes, I know my squat is low. And, like most people in the NBA, I'll be eating just as much as any fat guy. That's what gaining muscle buys you - it lets you eat as much as ever while being "that jacked guy" rather than "that fat guy". This also ignores the fact that to build and maintain the muscle, you are burning calories anaerobically, the same as you would if you were sprinting (slower running burns fewer calories, since it's primarily aerobic).

kenjackson 15y ago
I'm 6'5", and I weigh 242lb Remind me stop disagreeing with you. :-)
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  At 6'2", 265#, bouncers at bars call me "sir".
rdouble 15y ago
NBA players also play basketball 4 hours per day. You can't really eat whatever you want just cuz you can bench press 1/2 your bodyweight. Retired athletes tend to balloon up because they keep eating the same way they did when they were burning 8000 calories per day.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Hold diet fixed and start lifting weights. If you start at 6'5" and weigh 254lb, you might end up the same way. But you'll go from 45" waist and 12" bicep to a 34" waist and 20" biceps. In my book, that's a victory. (This assumes you eat sufficient protein - if the calories are all fat + carbs, this won't work.) [edit: to address rdouble's point, a 6'5" 254lb man who plays basketball also needs to eat more than the 6'5" 254lb man who doesn't, and cut back when he stops playing basketball. I never meant to dispute this.]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
Shorel 15y ago
Because BMI is a crap measurement and you are not overweight, you are muscular.
salsakran 15y ago
You're not going to like hearing this, but unless those numbers are in kg's you're not likely to be "jacked". The reality is you're probably carrying significantly more fat than you think you are.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  Um, what I said: "...the most you'd see is a little excess belly fat if I took my shirt off..." I know I have some fat. I'll start stressing about it when my lifts stop going up, or when it becomes visibly excessive. As for being "jacked", I wasn't describing myself now, but rather a hypothetical future self. You can infer this based on my use of the future tense: "When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA...I'll be eating just as much..." I know I've got a long way to go. That's why I'm describing the future rather than the present.
dredmorbius 15y ago
When I hit 253, I'll be obese, just like pretty much everyone in the NBA. Sadly, that's literally true in the US. The definition of obesity is dictated, by official US health policy, by BMI. Which means that every heavyweight bodybuilder on stage at the Mr. Olympia contest this past fall, at 4% body fat, is considered "obese" by official definitions. BMI is an absolutely crap measurement. It's readily and easily replaced by far more accurate and useful measures (circumference measures for starters). While BMI remains vaguely useful in making obesity estimates of populations based on height/weight datapoints readily available in existing databases, it never was, and was never meant by even its first modern revivalists, to be used as an individual measure of fitness. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1062684... http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/ http://www.slate.com/id/2223095/ http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_09.html

saturdaysaint 15y ago

Yes, this is why I mentioned muscle preservation and focused on the hormonal impact of different kinds of exercise. The "calories-burned-per-muscle-pound theory" is probably a drastic simplification of the benefits of resistance training. Then again, the article in point shows that muscle mass isn't the only relevant metric - the article shows that changes in muscle quality (becoming more "slow twitch" in character) can have vast health implications. Conversely, it might follow, that nobody needs to gain a pound of muscle to accrue benefits from weight training.

xsmasher 15y ago

You're discounting the calories burned while lifting the weights. Running also gets easier as you lose weight, so you'll top out unless you add miles/time or speed.