3 ms·

I'm pretty skeptical of their numbers as well. It costs calories to build the muscle in the first place. It's a snowballing effect.

justinator 4y ago
I don't know if there's a way to properly measure the amount of cals it takes to build muscle. "Building Muscle" isn't just one thing. Muscle fiber being different than simply glycogen storing in the muscle, being different than mitochondria proliferation within the muscle cell being different than just water weight from getting on Creatine. All which produce "bigger muscle".
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Agreed, it's a thorny issue. My own subjective experience of lifting weights 3x per week vs. biking 5+ miles into work 5x a week is that the lifting was far more successful in helping me lose weight. Ideally, you do both. But I worry that many people, especially those in this industry, underestimate the weight loss gains from building muscle.
  - justinator 4y ago
    Your personal experience sounds exceptional. Do you think that lifestyle changes you made while weightlifting also impacting your waistline? As in: you probably looked a little closer at what you were eating, so as to properly support you weightlifting habit.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    FWIW, bikes are built to be efficient means of moving. Biking 50 or 100 miles per week only burns 250-500 calories, so you wouldn’t expect much weight change. That volume is good for keeping your body limber, but it’s not really exercise in terms of weight loss or cardio conditioning.
    - justinator 4y ago
      >Biking 50 or 100 miles per week only burns 250-500 calories, so you wouldn’t expect much weight change. You may want to double check that math. https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitness-and-training/how-many-calories-does-cycling-burn/ https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitness-and-training/how-ma... Perhaps 500 calories/hour is a rough estimate. 100 miles @ 15 mph = 6.66 hours = 3333 cals or roughly what it takes to burn 1lb of fat.

justinator 4y ago

I don't know if there's a way to properly measure the amount of cals it takes to build muscle. "Building Muscle" isn't just one thing. Muscle fiber being different than simply glycogen storing in the muscle, being different than mitochondria proliferation within the muscle cell being different than just water weight from getting on Creatine. All which produce "bigger muscle".

chitowneats 4y ago
Agreed, it's a thorny issue. My own subjective experience of lifting weights 3x per week vs. biking 5+ miles into work 5x a week is that the lifting was far more successful in helping me lose weight. Ideally, you do both. But I worry that many people, especially those in this industry, underestimate the weight loss gains from building muscle.
- justinator 4y ago
  Your personal experience sounds exceptional. Do you think that lifestyle changes you made while weightlifting also impacting your waistline? As in: you probably looked a little closer at what you were eating, so as to properly support you weightlifting habit.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  FWIW, bikes are built to be efficient means of moving. Biking 50 or 100 miles per week only burns 250-500 calories, so you wouldn’t expect much weight change. That volume is good for keeping your body limber, but it’s not really exercise in terms of weight loss or cardio conditioning.
  - justinator 4y ago
    >Biking 50 or 100 miles per week only burns 250-500 calories, so you wouldn’t expect much weight change. You may want to double check that math. https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitness-and-training/how-many-calories-does-cycling-burn/ https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/fitness-and-training/how-ma... Perhaps 500 calories/hour is a rough estimate. 100 miles @ 15 mph = 6.66 hours = 3333 cals or roughly what it takes to burn 1lb of fat.