PDA

View Full Version : "Never exercise for over 45 minutes"



wild_wild_wes
05-07-10, 10:34
This month I have seen two seperate studies that highlight the dangers of the strees hormone Cortisol.

The first stated that new reseach pointed to elevated Cortisol levels being responsible for weight retention, abdominal fat deposits, high blood pressure, and risk of coronary disease.

The second study concluded that after approximatly 45 minutes of cardio or strength training, the body begins to secrete Cortisol in high amounts, and does so continuously as exercise continues.

So....how do you guys react to these studies?

Heavy Metal
05-07-10, 12:20
I am interested in getting Will's take on this. I have been hearing the same.

Littlelebowski
05-07-10, 12:31
Bullshit.

120mm
05-07-10, 12:45
The problem with most of these "studies" is scale effect.

My own personal take is that most medical science is absolute bullshit as far as fitness is concerned.

Fitness "experts" generally chase this or that phenomenon around, depending on how many supplements, books and classes they can sell, and each couple years brings on a new "substance" that has "key impacts on health." Sometimes I think they just look in a medical dictionary, and find a word like "cortisoliscreatinesterone" and tell you it's the key to everything from "reducing belly fat" (which should automatically send your bullshit meter off the charts, btw) to stopping bad breath.

Of course, eat less, exercise more, stop bad habits, and get a reasonable amount of sleep doesn't pay any bills for exercise gurus. And is way to hard for lardasses who want an easy way to get their asses in gear and actually lose their fat asses.

I used to be a lardass; mind-****ing fitness mags and listening to "experts". Then, I just manned up and quit eating so much and worked out more.

And shockingly, despite evidently soaring cortisol levels from my 1 hour of cardio and 30 minutes of weight workout, 6 days a week, I am fit as hell. RHR of 40, BP of 116 over 48 or so, and a vigorous 46 1/2 years old.

Of course, the sky actually could be falling. Medical studies.... jeesh!

rljatl
05-07-10, 13:28
Yep, bullshit. Just wait and another study will come along to refute that one. How many overweight people do you see that regularly run for more than 45 minutes a day? Defies common sense, if you ask me. Calories consumed minus calories burned...

wild_wild_wes
05-07-10, 13:32
Not the studies I saw but:

"However, there is another hormone closely associated with bodybuilding. This hormone is cortisol, a steroid hormone, and is probably the most underrated of the four bodybuilding hormones overviewed in this article. Cortisol is termed catabolic as it has the opposite effect to testosterone, insulin and growth hormone in that it breaks down tissue.

In fact cortisol, which is released by the adrenal glands under conditions of high mental and physical stress and high temperature, is the body's primary catabolic hormone. The three main functions of cortisol are:


The reduction of protein synthesis.

The facilitation of protein to glucose.

The halting of tissue growth.
It is therefore essential that cortisol release is controlled if one is to facilitate muscle growth. As well as being released under conditions of stress and high temperature cortisol is also released first thing in the morning. Morning aerobics have been thought to be effective for this very reason.

However this is misguided thinking because exercising on an empty stomach first thing in the morning has been shown to actually intensify cortisol's effects thus resulting in further muscle loss, and consequently metabolic resistance to body fat loss.

There is not a lot a bodybuilder can do in terms of completely restricting cortisol release as, although cortisol can be problematic for bodybuilders, it is an important hormone nevertheless. The vital functions that cortisol govern are the regulation of inflammatory responses in the body and the balancing of blood sugar in times of stress.

It is excess cortisol that is the problem for bodybuilders not cortisol per se. The dangers of excess cortisol are:


Reduced growth hormone, and testosterone output.

Osteoporosis.

Reduced muscle and increased abdominal fat.

Impaired memory and learning.

Reduced glucose utilization.

Impaired immunity.

Controlling Cortisol Release


Although cortisol release cannot be prevented, it can, and should, be controlled. Controlling the release of cortisol can be achieved by employing the following methods:


Exercise (aerobically and with weights): This may seem like a paradox but correct exercise, although it increases stress, will negate the effects of cortisol in the long term. The key is to not overtrain and to do just enough to adequately stimulate the particular system being training (muscular or aerobic). Aerobic sessions should be kept at between 30 and 45 minutes and weight sessions should be no longer than 45 minutes. The endorphin release from these two types of exercise should offset any release in cortisol."

*****

"The duration, intensity and frequency of exercise will determine the circulating levels of testosterone. Testosterone levels increase most with short intense bursts, while it decreases with prolonged activity especially that of frequent endurance training. During endurance training, testosterone is needed to maintain muscle but frequent extended training doesn’t allow for repair and recovery of testosterone and tissue damage occurs.

Studies show that testosterone levels will elevate with exercise for about 45 to 60 minutes. After this time period, cortisol levels begin to increase and testosterone levels will decline. This decrease has been detected for up to 6 days.

Because you require testosterone for repair and growth, do not train for more than 45 to 60 minutes at a single session. If you feel like you want to exercise or train more, split sessions are recommended. Also do not lift weights and perform aerobic training at the same time. It is also a good idea to vary your workouts and cycle them throughout the year."

*****

http://www.natural-weight-loss-myths-revealed.com/images/Hormone-Graph.jpg

http://www.natural-weight-loss-myths-revealed.com/images/Hormone-response-during-workout400.jpg

"Here you see human growth hormone take a surge within the work out.

You also see testosterone spike at about the 35 to 45-minute mark.

After that both hormones start to subside and cortisol starts to surge.

When you hear the now popular idea that a short intense workout is the best, this is why. After the 45-minute mark you are not getting any more hormonal response.


Diminishing Return
Between the 45 to 60-minute mark, there is no gain for the work you do. Exercising after this point will start to break your muscle down because cortisol will surge. The nervous system takes this intense stress as a warning signal and will make cortisol immediately dominant.

When cortisol surges it suppresses the anabolic hormones testosterone and growth hormone.

The length of the workout to enhance hormonal restoration means keeping it under 45 minutes.

The basic rule is - the more time our body has high levels of anabolic hormones and lower catabolic hormones the better. Over any given period of time we want the cumulative effect to be more time spent in an anabolic state."

*****

"According the University of New Mexico’s Len Kravitz the critical level that results in excess cortisol secretion occurs after about 45 minutes of exercise--some people hit the critical level earlier, others later depending on variety of genetic and other variables.

Two of the effects of excess cortisol are fat retention, it makes your body want to hold on to fat instead of burn it, and muscle catabolism, it makes you body use skeletal muscle for energy.

The muscle catabolism is most pernicious effect of cortisol for people trying to lose fat.

First, cardiovascular activity is very efficient at chewing up muscle tissue, the steps are as follows:

1. Conversion from fast twitch muscle fiber to slow twitch muscle fiber, by acquiring mitochondria and relinquishing contractile protein. Smaller fiber, less RMR.

2. Excessive Cortisol released in response to the damage to the fiber as a result of the exercise. Cortisol acts as a natural analgesic, but severely hampers protein synthesis and muscle repair.

3 . It has been shown, that high volume cardiovascular exercise can completely deplete satellite cells in muscle fiber, which means no new fiber can grow or existing fiber be repaired.

4 . Growth Hormone levels decline with high volume cardiovascular exercise, which also hampers the repair process. Low growth hormone also accelerates aging.

5. To sum it up, you can’t train all day, and you can’t eat no food, but you can always build a bit more muscle, so quit the cardio and concentrate on the weight lifting."

*****

"First, after about 40-45 minutes of any type of exercise — and especially intense weight training — so much cortisol has entered the bloodstream that a shutdown of eicosonoid production will begin. Eicosonoids are autocrine hormones (such as prostagladins) that control all function at a cellular level — i.e., inflammation, vasodilation/constriction, heart rate, body temperature, immune function, etc. In this case, cortisol secretion is a response to stress. As eicosonoid production stops, the body is temporarily allowed relief from pain, which it is sensing from too much from intense exercise. For example, a shutdown of PGE1 and PGE2 (pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory) prostagladins would commence. Since pain in this case is relative to some type of inflammation this would allow the body to cope in the short term.

If this persisted, however, all eicosonoids would shut down and the body's function would come to a screeching halt. This is the same dilemma that doctors face when giving people corticosteroids. At first, all symptoms magically disappear; however, within a few days T-cells begin to plummet and heart irregularities and other key physiological dysfunctions begin to appear. This is because the autocrine hormone eicosonoids are being shut down at the cellular level.

Because of their power, these hormones also vanish in seconds. They are, however, the primary activators and modulators of all body functions and, once they shut down, other hormonal systems (endocrine and paracrine) are sure to follow. Small amounts of cortisol are not so dangerous, because once dissipated, the eicosonoid production returns to normal. As you might surmise, being in the gym 2-3 hours every day is an effective way of increasing to a potentially counterproductive — and even dangerous — level in the body.

Secondly, during moderate exercise like walking, insulin levels diminish and blood glucose levels arise in response to the exercise-related increase in glucagon (the pancreas releases glucagon to balance blood glucose levels). This primarily glucose restoration mechanism works smoothly as long as exercise is maintained at a moderate level. But if the intensity increases, cortisol is released to stabilize blood sugar and insulin levels. More cortisol, more problems.

Third, the more intensely you exercise, the more ATP you must produce in the mitochondria for energy. The more ATP you produce, the more free radicals you make, and a certain percentage of those free radicals slip by the energy production phase. Once "loose" in the body, these unpaired electrons search out other electrons to latch onto and oxidize. These excess free radicals search out essential fatty acids (because of their high-polyunsaturation), DNA (which they can damage), protein, fats and a host of important vitamins that we call antioxidants. Making too many free radicals is almost assuredly a passport to aging because they can potentially damage so many essential nutrients and biologically necessary compounds. Too much exercise, along with eating too many calories, is the most effective way of making excessive amount of free radicals."

*****

"It actually does the body more harm than good, to work out for long periods of time. When you exercise more than 45 minutes, the body begins to produce increased amounts of cortisol, which triggers muscle breakdown.
■Cortisol is able to overpower just about all other hormones in the body.
■Cortisol can cause accumulation of body fat even if you think you are doing all the right things correctly.
■Cortisol will block HGH from doing its job.

High levels of cortisol are known to be the cause of:
■Decreased bone density.
■Increased blood pressure.
■Inhibition of the immune system.
■Muscle wasting.
■Insulin resistance.
■Increased body fat levels.

When exercise is combined with an improper diet:
■Blood sugar fluctuations can elevate cortisol.
■Excessive carbohydrates can elevate cortisol.
■Protein deficiency can elevate cortisol.
■Eating too little can cause cortisol to rise.
■During times of stress, cortisol is elevated.

variablebinary
05-07-10, 13:49
I cant stay motivated past an hour, hour and a half tops.

45 minutes is a good amount of workout time

SIGguy229
05-07-10, 15:23
Interesting...I should tell my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan they should only work 45 mins at a time with their battle rattle on...

Abraxas
05-07-10, 15:26
So....how do you guys react to these studies?

I dont buy it. When it comes to fitness and nutrition every time you turn around there is some study coming out that contradicts some other study. I look at what works and listen to people who can back up what they say with reality. Something else to consider when reading these studies, is that there is usually aspects that are left out. For instance Cortisol is natural and serves some purpose. Now if you are a lazy shit like me high levels are bad. But what if it serves some sort of benefit if you have been working out for so long and you have some other hormone in your body that has to be counteracted? I am not saying that this is the case, just saying that these studies often do not tell the whole story, if they are true at all.

Jay Cunningham
05-07-10, 16:44
...eat less, exercise more, stop bad habits, and get a reasonable amount of sleep...

/thread/

Heavy Metal
05-07-10, 16:49
Interesting...I should tell my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan they should only work 45 mins at a time with their battle rattle on...

Funny, you are the first person to try and define combat as primarily a weight-loss activity. Are your friends also straw-men like your arguments?

tampam4
05-07-10, 17:16
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs519.ash1/30581_1463640793969_1321971656_31270798_8246773_n.jpgmy respectful opinion of this

. In the past 6 months, I've never been to a single workout with my SEAL motivator that didn't last at least 3 hours. I doubt working out more than 45 min will do more harm than good.

Naxet1959
05-07-10, 18:06
As a 4 time marathoner and a dozen half marathons mixed with a half dozen triathlons under my belt I can say emphatically that my stomach isn't getting developing a beer belly and my testosterone levels are very healthily high. 45 minutes? That's just a warm up. Bite me ScienceMan!:D

wild_wild_wes
05-07-10, 18:32
I do a lot of bike riding, and see a lot of serious bike riders out there.

None of them have any muscle mass to speak of. They are skinny, yes, and doubtless in very good cardiovascular health, but none of them look like they have any upper body strength at all.

tampam4
05-07-10, 18:39
Wes, just stating my opinion here, not attacking you:)

You also see a lot of serious weightlifters who look really big. That said, I've never seen a "serious" bike rider that looked really buff. Being very slim and slender seems to be the ideal body type for that particular sport. They don't need a large amount of muscle mass, it's not what is most important to succeed in their sport.

BooneGA
05-08-10, 01:26
I do a lot of bike riding, and see a lot of serious bike riders out there.

None of them have any muscle mass to speak of. They are skinny, yes, and doubtless in very good cardiovascular health, but none of them look like they have any upper body strength at all.


There is a reason the serious racers are built like that. Because they choose to be. It is the best build for their chosen sport. I have friends who are training with the goal of losing upper body muscle mass because it does nothing for their performance on the bike other than slow them down.

If you are an athlete you direct your training to maximum performance in your chosen sport, if upper body muscle mass isnt needed, you get rid of it.

As for the 45 minutes of exercise at a time, straight bullshit.

wild_wild_wes
05-08-10, 01:37
Or maybe that is the way their bodies are going to be anyway, and they just found their way into that sport because it "felt right"?

bkb0000
05-08-10, 03:12
Bullshit.

pretty much. ask any roofer.

SIGguy229
05-08-10, 03:39
Funny, you are the first person to try and define combat as primarily a weight-loss activity. Are your friends also straw-men like your arguments?

No...I'm saying heavy exertion wearing 60-70 lbs of gear for hours at a time kind of contradicts the "study"

WTF is up with the personal attack...:confused:

mkmckinley
05-08-10, 05:50
It all depends on what you're training for. If you want to run a marathon or hold your breath for a long time underwater you need to run a lot or swim a lot, respectively. Neither type of training is going to result in great upper body strength. I think the study the OP was talking about was geared more toward strength training with weights. In my experience the conclusion that anything more than an hour or so in the gym, is pointless or even counterproductive.

Low Drag
05-08-10, 07:33
Yep, bullshit. Just wait and another study will come along to refute that one. How many overweight people do you see that regularly run for more than 45 minutes a day? Defies common sense, if you ask me. Calories consumed minus calories burned...

Same same.

Just look at triathletes that do full iron man tris, then there's Armstrong and his peers. Not much fat at all on any of these guys (or gals), forget about belly fat. They all do many hours a day in training.

120mm
05-08-10, 10:25
Speaking of bullshit,

I finally got around to reading that whole, torturously written article. And then I came upon this gem:


"It actually does the body more harm than good, to work out for long periods of time. When you exercise more than 45 minutes, the body begins to produce increased amounts of cortisol, which triggers muscle breakdown.

WTF is "muscle breakdown". Explain exactly, what that means. Bullshit, in other words.


■Cortisol is able to overpower just about all other hormones in the body.

Really? It "overpowers" them? I suppose that's scientific, too. How does it "overpower" them, exactly.



■Cortisol can cause accumulation of body fat even if you think you are doing all the right things correctly.

CAUSE???? Here's a big ass clue: Scientists and medical professionals know SHIT about "cause" in the human body. There is only degrees of positive or negative correlation. Or not. This is the sure sign of shyster crap.



■Cortisol will block HGH from doing its job.

High levels of cortisol are known to be the cause of:
■Decreased bone density.
■Increased blood pressure.
■Inhibition of the immune system.
■Muscle wasting.
■Insulin resistance.
■Increased body fat levels.

More blah, blah, blah causal bullshit. Who writes this stuff and what kind of idiots actually believe it?

KNOWN causes? Yeah, right. Why the superfluous qualifier? As opposed to UNKNOWN causes? This is snake oil salesman speak. What does this jackass who wrote this sell, anyway?

Actually, I'd like to thank the OP for providing such a fine opportunity to go off via the internet. It's very seldom I get such a nice, plump, easy to go off on target.

wild_wild_wes
05-08-10, 10:52
Well, it's nice you are having such fun.

Anyway. In order to jump-start my weightloss program, I was considering bicycling to work for three months. It is 18 miles from my house, so that makes a 90 minute ride there in the morning, then a 90 minute ride back in the afternoon. Last summer I did it for two months; I lost a few pounds at first, but by the time it was over I had actually gained weight. I saw these articles on Cortisol and wondered if it was to blame; after all, at three hours cardio a day I would hardly expect to see a weight gain.

So, I was wondering if trying the ride program but with a different nutritional support regime might help. But, I don't want to loose the muscle mass I worked so hard to develop this year.

Hot Sauce
05-08-10, 11:55
Well, it's nice you are having such fun.

Anyway. In order to jump-start my weightloss program, I was considering bicycling to work for three months. It is 18 miles from my house, so that makes a 90 minute ride there in the morning, then a 90 minute ride back in the afternoon. Last summer I did it for two months; I lost a few pounds at first, but by the time it was over I had actually gained weight. I saw these articles on Cortisol and wondered if it was to blame; after all, at three hours cardio a day I would hardly expect to see a weight gain.

So, I was wondering if trying the ride program but with a different nutritional support regime might help. But, I don't want to loose the muscle mass I worked so hard to develop this year.

What else were you doing during these two months? You are burning away calories when biking. Obviously the biking is not the determining variable in this situation. Regardless of any cortisol level, what is important is how many calories you intake, and how many you burn. If you burn off calories beyond body maintenance levels, you eventually lose weight, that's just how it works.

Abraxas
05-08-10, 12:07
What else were you doing during these two months? You are burning away calories when biking. Obviously the biking is not the determining variable in this situation. Regardless of any cortisol level, what is important is how many calories you intake, and how many you burn. If you burn off calories beyond body maintenance levels, you eventually lose weight, that's just how it works.

He also should not forget that you can gain weight if you gain muscle. I know that bicycling is mostly cardio but you will still be strengthening your legs and adding muscle when you ride so often. People should not obsess as much about weight as they should about performance.

Hot Sauce
05-08-10, 14:09
Quite right in terms weight gain from biking, but the tone of the post seemed to imply more. In general I agree, I could care less how much I weigh, as long as I look and can perform how I want.

Impact
05-08-10, 14:26
you need variety in your workout.
the body adapts itself to the same workout. I suggest trying crossfit. i wasn't a believer until I started to see the results.

Low Drag
05-08-10, 21:23
Well, it's nice you are having such fun.

Anyway. In order to jump-start my weightloss program, I was considering bicycling to work for three months. It is 18 miles from my house, so that makes a 90 minute ride there in the morning, then a 90 minute ride back in the afternoon. Last summer I did it for two months; I lost a few pounds at first, but by the time it was over I had actually gained weight. I saw these articles on Cortisol and wondered if it was to blame; after all, at three hours cardio a day I would hardly expect to see a weight gain.

So, I was wondering if trying the ride program but with a different nutritional support regime might help. But, I don't want to loose the muscle mass I worked so hard to develop this year.

I'd wager you put on some muscle. I did a century (100 mile road bike ride) last year with a nasty climb the first 35 miles. I know I put on some muscle during the training season and as a result of the actual event. I took a few weeks off and hit a moderate climb around home and zipped up a hill that 'gets your attention' at a speed I've never done before.

Dos Cylindros
05-09-10, 00:45
45 min, bull shit. Ever seen a fat marathon runner? Enough said.

wild_wild_wes
05-09-10, 01:01
You misread the information: it says nothing about Cortisol making you fat. It says it destroys muscle tissue.

120mm
05-09-10, 04:45
You misread the information: it says nothing about Cortisol making you fat. It says it destroys muscle tissue.

Here's the deal. I bet you that you are a) gaining muscle or b) eating more. Of course, there is c) both.

There's something else. Bicycle riding can be awful cardio, because it's hard to maintain intensity on a lot of rides. I don't know how much coasting you do, or how much you have to stop and wait for traffic or whatever. I know fat guys who ride bicycle all the time. It never seems to do anything to help their fitness level.

But don't miss my other point: Anyone who attributes a straight causal relationship of Cortisol, or any other substance in the human body to fitness is full of shit. There may be some apparent correlation, but that's different from cause.

If you are having trouble losing weight/getting in shape, eat less and exercise more. And if "more" includes finding more intense ways to work out, that works too.

If that's not what you want to hear, there is nothing I can do for you.

fitM4
05-09-10, 14:04
If you're trying to build muscle and be as efficient as possible in doing so, you could be counterproductive after 45 minutes due to cortisol studies. But you need to train for the metabolics of your sport. Marathon runners lose a lot of muscle tissue because of their training, but that's ok, because they aren't training for muscle mass. A SEAL trains for 3 hours, because their training sessions have more to do than just build muscle, and get fit. They also train that long, to push themselves as far and as hard as possible to build their mental toughness, because the day may come when they need to do so just to stay alive and make it through a ****ed up scenario. So, they don't give a shit about cortisol levels and not being quite as ripped as a body builder.

Flight-ER-Doc
05-09-10, 17:28
Speaking of bullshit,

I finally got around to reading that whole, torturously written article. And then I came upon this gem:



WTF is "muscle breakdown". Explain exactly, what that means. Bullshit, in other words.



Really? It "overpowers" them? I suppose that's scientific, too. How does it "overpower" them, exactly.




CAUSE???? Here's a big ass clue: Scientists and medical professionals know SHIT about "cause" in the human body. There is only degrees of positive or negative correlation. Or not. This is the sure sign of shyster crap.



More blah, blah, blah causal bullshit. Who writes this stuff and what kind of idiots actually believe it?

KNOWN causes? Yeah, right. Why the superfluous qualifier? As opposed to UNKNOWN causes? This is snake oil salesman speak. What does this jackass who wrote this sell, anyway?

Actually, I'd like to thank the OP for providing such a fine opportunity to go off via the internet. It's very seldom I get such a nice, plump, easy to go off on target.

Tell you what, skippy: Check yourself into a hospital, get shot up with hydrocortisone (which, btw, is cortisol) for a month....You can exercise as much as you want during this period...

And we'll see what kind of shape you're in afterwards... We'll do bone density and body-fat compositions before and after, and compare hard data.

Physicians actually have some clue about what happens in the body. At least real ones do.

mkmckinley
05-10-10, 01:25
Speaking of bullshit,

I finally got around to reading that whole, torturously written article. And then I came upon this gem:



WTF is "muscle breakdown". Explain exactly, what that means. Bullshit, in other words.



Really? It "overpowers" them? I suppose that's scientific, too. How does it "overpower" them, exactly.




CAUSE???? Here's a big ass clue: Scientists and medical professionals know SHIT about "cause" in the human body. There is only degrees of positive or negative correlation. Or not. This is the sure sign of shyster crap.



More blah, blah, blah causal bullshit. Who writes this stuff and what kind of idiots actually believe it?

KNOWN causes? Yeah, right. Why the superfluous qualifier? As opposed to UNKNOWN causes? This is snake oil salesman speak. What does this jackass who wrote this sell, anyway?

Actually, I'd like to thank the OP for providing such a fine opportunity to go off via the internet. It's very seldom I get such a nice, plump, easy to go off on target.

Thanks Nancy Drew!

So, let me get this straight. The technical language, though written in layman's terms, is above your head so you're calling the authors idiots? I can assure you the things referred to in the article are not "snake oil" as you put it. How about this, when you scan and post your biochem degree or MD you can make statements like these and be taken seriously.

Scientists and western doctors know a lot about what goes on inside the human body. Western medicine can successfully treat things that couldn't even be diagnosed a few decades ago. Lucky you.

120mm
05-10-10, 04:32
Tell you what, skippy: Check yourself into a hospital, get shot up with hydrocortisone (which, btw, is cortisol) for a month....You can exercise as much as you want during this period...

And we'll see what kind of shape you're in afterwards... We'll do bone density and body-fat compositions before and after, and compare hard data.

Physicians actually have some clue about what happens in the body. At least real ones do.

Frankly, the typical physician knows as much about exercize science as a Women's Day article. If they can't give you a pill, a shot, splint it or get it cut out, most are pretty limited.

Just ask the 50 docs and specialists I just went through to discover that my 16 year old gets migraines in her stomach.

Okay... so what relationship does injected hydrocortizone have with exercise induced cortisol? According to the quoted article, I've been awash in it for the last 3 years. Yet my own physical results appear to contraindicate the article. (Hint: I am a sample size of one.) Oh, btw, wouldn't the INJECTED hydrocortizone (which is not my native produced cortisol) double tap my naturally produced cortisol? Um... You DO know how to conduct a study, don't you???

You can drown in water, too. Does that mean you should stop drinking water? I mean, the water you drown in is the same water you drink, after all...

I write densely. That can sometimes lead to misunderstandings, especially among the terminally butt-hurt. But the OP's article had little to do with "medicine" or "science".


Thanks Nancy Drew!

So, let me get this straight. The technical language, though written in layman's terms, is above your head so you're calling the authors idiots? I can assure you the things referred to in the article are not "snake oil" as you put it. How about this, when you scan and post your biochem degree or MD you can make statements like these and be taken seriously.

Scientists and western doctors know a lot about what goes on inside the human body. Western medicine can successfully treat things that couldn't even be diagnosed a few decades ago. Lucky you.

Above my head? WTF??? I understand perfectly what the shysters who wrote that article were trying to say/sell. I'm calling the people who buy into it idiots.

I don't know a single scientist OR real doc who "knows" what goes on inside the human body. I don't think you understand what a mystery a lot of that still is. Even to these theoretically knowledgeable docs and scientists.

I do ethnography for a living. That's a fancy term for "determining what brand of bullshit people believe in." I think you'd be shocked at what kinds of things both docs and scientists do that are completely and utterly unscientific.

The best docs and scientists I know live in the land of correlations. That's because once you enter the land of cause and effect, you will be surprised.

K.L. Davis
05-10-10, 08:54
Fulmination is great in chemistry... but not so much in these forums.

This thread needs to dial down on the barbs a bit.

wild_wild_wes
05-10-10, 22:10
Physicians actually have some clue about what happens in the body.

From your user name I would guess you have some medical training.

Do you have specific knowledge on this issue?

wild_wild_wes
05-10-10, 22:11
This thread needs to dial down on the barbs a bit.


agree

wolverineSIERRA
05-10-10, 22:31
that overtraining myth is bullshit, as long as you take the right steps post recovery, making sure you get good supplements, and food and enough sleep youd be okay

wild_wild_wes
05-10-10, 23:18
Overtraining is no myth! At least in the long-term.

Warg
05-10-10, 23:39
This month I have seen two seperate studies that highlight the dangers of the strees hormone Cortisol.

The first stated that new reseach pointed to elevated Cortisol levels being responsible for weight retention, abdominal fat deposits, high blood pressure, and risk of coronary disease.

The second study concluded that after approximatly 45 minutes of cardio or strength training, the body begins to secrete Cortisol in high amounts, and does so continuously as exercise continues.

So....how do you guys react to these studies?


W_W_Wes,

Please send me the refs and I'll take a look and do my best to interpret the results. I'm a research scientist/epidemiologist with over 20 yrs of experience, BTW.

Regards,

Gene

bkb0000
05-10-10, 23:44
so i guess all you guys who buy into this bs dont and have never had labor intensive jobs...?

once again- ask any roofer.

as many know, i'm a construction contractor.. now that i'm "boss," i don't work nearly as hard as i used to- but i still pull my own, and i still "exercise" a lot longer than 45 minutes every day.

i made my entry into the construction industry as a roofer. i started roofing as a tear-off guy- a laborer-slash-acrobat. the guy i apprenticed for always did 10-14+/12 pitch 5-or-more-layer tear-offs and re-sheets. for those of you who have no idea what i'm talking about, XX/12 refers to run to rise: 10/12 is 10" up for every 12" in... steep. a 14/12 means the roof rises faster than the run... very steep. tearing off 5 layers of roofing with modified shovels, packing 4x8 sheets of CDX two at a time up two stories of ladder, then climbing another story of toe-boards or sticker-boards times 30-50 trips, then packing all the 500+lbs per-square times 20 to 50 squares into trash cans and packing it out to wherever your drop-box is and dumping them- times who knows how many trips.... averaging 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, and usually only getting 4-5 hours of sleep on half a bottle of bourbon a night... roofers are some of the tuffest mother ****ers you'll ever meet.

45 minutes a day... almost pisses me off that anyone can buy that crap.

if you're hitting the gym and trying to build useless muscle mass to impress the dumb bitch that works at your office, a HIT routine of 30 minutes a day 3-4 times a week will do that the fastest. but any roofer will still kick the snot out of you.

120mm
05-11-10, 05:09
so i guess all you guys who buy into this bs dont and have never had labor intensive jobs...?

once again- ask any roofer.

as many know, i'm a construction contractor.. now that i'm "boss," i don't work nearly as hard as i used to- but i still pull my own, and i still "exercise" a lot longer than 45 minutes every day.

i made my entry into the construction industry as a roofer. i started roofing as a tear-off guy- a laborer-slash-acrobat. the guy i apprenticed for always did 10-14+/12 pitch 5-or-more-layer tear-offs and re-sheets. for those of you who have no idea what i'm talking about, XX/12 refers to run to rise: 10/12 is 10" up for every 12" in... steep. a 14/12 means the roof rises faster than the run... very steep. tearing off 5 layers of roofing with modified shovels, packing 4x8 sheets of CDX two at a time up two stories of ladder, then climbing another story of toe-boards or sticker-boards times 30-50 trips, then packing all the 500+lbs per-square times 20 to 50 squares into trash cans and packing it out to wherever your drop-box is and dumping them- times who knows how many trips.... averaging 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, and usually only getting 4-5 hours of sleep on half a bottle of bourbon a night... roofers are some of the tuffest mother ****ers you'll ever meet.

45 minutes a day... almost pisses me off that anyone can buy that crap.

if you're hitting the gym and trying to build useless muscle mass to impress the dumb bitch that works at your office, a HIT routine of 30 minutes a day 3-4 times a week will do that the fastest. but any roofer will still kick the snot out of you.

Yep.

But muscle mass is the holy grail that fitness snake oil salesmen THRIVE on.

Fitness and building muscle mass are two mutually exclusive things in 99% of human modes of existence.

Fyrhazzrd
05-30-10, 19:13
Of course, eat less, exercise more, stop bad habits, and get a reasonable amount of sleep.



I can assure you that this is about 75% of all you need in order to lose weight. And lose weight fast.

6 Years ago I weight 250LBS at a height of 5'8". I was quite tubby to say the least.

I quit smoking, dropped down to a 1200 calorie a day diet, walked on the treadmill at a speed of 4mph (very fast walk) at an incline of 4. It did take about three weeks to build up a tolerance to be able to walk on the treadmill at those speeds and inclines though. But anyway. I would keep up the pace for 60 Minutes. My target was to burn 500 Calories a day.

I did this for four roughly 5 months. I did not break a single day. I worked out religiously everyday after work. I lost 100 LBS in that 5 months.

Everyone at work thought I had cancer because I lost so much weight in such a short amount of time.

But I will tell you, on top of exercise, and calorie reduction. I made sure that I ate breakfast every morning. I would either have a single package of a granola bar, or a single package of instant oatmeal. I would also make sure I had a single serving of dairy every day. Most of the time it would be a yogurt cup.

And sleep is very important. If you aren't getting 8 hours of sleep, your metabolism will take a hit and you will not lose weight. Or at least not as much weight.

I'm not a doctor. All I can do is give advise from personal experience.

wild_wild_wes
05-30-10, 23:57
I am also 5'8". I took a medical test at the hospital to determine my Resting Metabolic Rate. My results came out as 2376 Kcal/day, and the advice given me was to never go below 1900 Kcal/day. Fyrhazzrd, your 1,200 diet was ill-advised; no wonder your co-workers thought you were dying. All the medical adice I've seen says that the maximum healthy weightloss rate is four lbs./week. At that rate a lot of what you lost was muscle mass, including off your heart.

All that being said, I'm currently running a 2,400 deficit five days a week in my Great Experiment (from exersize, not a starvation diet) ;)

See here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54767

120mm
05-31-10, 01:30
I am also 5'8". I took a medical test at the hospital to determine my Resting Metabolic Rate. My results came out as 2376 Kcal/day, and the advice given me was to never go below 1900 Kcal/day. Fyrhazzrd, your 1,200 diet was ill-advised; no wonder your co-workers thought you were dying. All the medical adice I've seen says that the maximum healthy weightloss rate is four lbs./week. At that rate a lot of what you lost was muscle mass, including off your heart.

All that being said, I'm currently running a 2,400 deficit five days a week in my Great Experiment (from exersize, not a starvation diet) ;)

See here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54767

I may be overly harsh in the way I put this in the past, so I will try to be more civil when I say this:

I've quit listening to medical people about fitness or weight loss. The problem with 2-4 pounds a week, is that weight loss is not just a mathematical exercise. It is a psychological/emotional/mental exercise as well. The great majority of folks I know who've lost weight and kept it off, have done so through a sustained crash weight loss. Note, losing 10 pounds and gaining 20 back is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about guys like me and Fyrhazzard, who've dropped 80-100 pounds in a very short time.

Medical folks can point out all the "do not do's" and "no diet unders" they want, but I can point out to several folks who've done otherwise, with a net increase in health and fitness benefit.

I'm not suggesting that there is no risk; I'm suggesting that the benefits outweigh the risks. Besides scale effect, one of the issues with the medical profession today, is the practice of absolutes among certain doctors.

Doctors, as a whole, are closer to ARFCOM than M4Carbine. A lot of their advice is based on unfounded opinion, conjecture and "things they've heard" than you'd like to believe.

For me, I'm glad I quit listening to doctors "expert" advice, and just got off my ass and lost the weight.

BTW - an anthropologist friend of mine published a paper in 2006? or so, that pointed out that a large percentage of doctors' preventative medical advice was based upon mythology. Something like 80%. I need to contact that person and link to that paper.

Outlander Systems
05-31-10, 05:06
As to the OP's question, I would have to say it's utter horse-hockey.

chuckman
05-31-10, 07:17
I may be overly harsh in the way I put this in the past, so I will try to be more civil when I say this:

I've quit listening to medical people about fitness or weight loss. The problem with 2-4 pounds a week, is that weight loss is not just a mathematical exercise. It is a psychological/emotional/mental exercise as well. The great majority of folks I know who've lost weight and kept it off, have done so through a sustained crash weight loss. Note, losing 10 pounds and gaining 20 back is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about guys like me and Fyrhazzard, who've dropped 80-100 pounds in a very short time.

Medical folks can point out all the "do not do's" and "no diet unders" they want, but I can point out to several folks who've done otherwise, with a net increase in health and fitness benefit.

I'm not suggesting that there is no risk; I'm suggesting that the benefits outweigh the risks. Besides scale effect, one of the issues with the medical profession today, is the practice of absolutes among certain doctors.

Doctors, as a whole, are closer to ARFCOM than M4Carbine. A lot of their advice is based on unfounded opinion, conjecture and "things they've heard" than you'd like to believe.

For me, I'm glad I quit listening to doctors "expert" advice, and just got off my ass and lost the weight.

BTW - an anthropologist friend of mine published a paper in 2006? or so, that pointed out that a large percentage of doctors' preventative medical advice was based upon mythology. Something like 80%. I need to contact that person and link to that paper.

Stop listening to doctors and those "so-called experts." What do they know anyway? Gosh, those fancy degrees and all of their research and clinical expertise, they are a bunch of voo-doo practitioners anyway.

Seriously...some of your comments go past insane and border idiocy.

Crash diets works for a very small percentage of people, and usually young, otherwise healthy people. It is irresponsible to recommend this to everyone, lest some poor schmuck goes into kidney failure or has some other nasty problem. I am glad crash dieting work for you and some others, but they cannot work for most people.

I would agree that people like you, and some others on this board, are Type-A, goal-minded, hard-chargers (it's the nature of this site), and I am pleased that this method of weight loss worked for you. Sorry I seemed ass-hatish with this. Not my intent, but I don't want some poor dude to read your post and think that the way you lost weight is normal or healthy; or interpret that people with no medical knowledge outside of a few books you can pick up at Barnes & Noble can effectively discredit medical experts by armchair quarterbacking.

WillBrink
05-31-10, 13:10
This month I have seen two seperate studies that highlight the dangers of the strees hormone Cortisol.

The first stated that new reseach pointed to elevated Cortisol levels being responsible for weight retention, abdominal fat deposits, high blood pressure, and risk of coronary disease.

The second study concluded that after approximatly 45 minutes of cardio or strength training, the body begins to secrete Cortisol in high amounts, and does so continuously as exercise continues.

So....how do you guys react to these studies?

Would have to read them first, but the age old advice to generally keep workouts to no longer then an hour exists more or less for that reason as it applies to strength athletes mostly. Nothing new there per se. There's a lot of potential variables to that advice however, so again, would have to read the studies and see how applicable they are to the "real world" :cool:

A much more science oriented write up regarding a similar topic (that will include elevated cortisol levels) is that of over training syndromes:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=55164

WillBrink
05-31-10, 13:26
[IMG]

. In the past 6 months, I've never been to a single workout with my SEAL motivator that didn't last at least 3 hours. I doubt working out more than 45 min will do more harm than good.

But that's the issue, it depends to a great extent on your goals. It will do more harm then good to train for 3 hours if maximizing LBM is the goal, hence the focus on shorter duration, etc. Looking into the effects of training, length, intensity, etc and it's effects on performance, injury rates, etc as it relates to various hormones (IGF-1, testosterone, cortisol, etc) as indicators of training loads, is an area of interest and research that is ongoing in the military and being done at locals such as Natick Labs, etc.

The change over to training smart vs just hard is ongoing and happening slowly but surely in the tactical community with improvements in performance and reduced rates of injury being seen. Some prior thoughts on that:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=34726&highlight=injuries

and

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=46479

WillBrink
05-31-10, 13:36
WTF is "muscle breakdown". Explain exactly, what that means. Bullshit, in other words.




It's an overly general term ('cause who ever wrote the piece I suspect has limited background in this area and or is writing to a specific audience...) for a process. From "Measurement of muscle proteolysis and the impact on muscle wasting"

"To effectively study the problems of muscle wasting, it is important to be able to measure over time changes in muscle mass, proteolysis and protein synthesis. By knowing how fast muscle is being lost and why it is being lost, effective therapies can be implemented to
maintain muscle mass and maximize muscle function, and, hence, minimize the health risks associated with depleted muscle mass."

There's nothing "bullshit" about what is a well established process of what the writer called ""muscle breakdown"

The net impact of "muscle breakdown" vs anabolic processes (building tissue) defines whether we lose tissue, gain it, or maintain it. There's no news there and it's bio 101 type stuff taught to first year undergrad types.

120mm
06-01-10, 00:04
It's an overly general term ('cause who ever wrote the piece I suspect has limited background in this area and or is writing to a specific audience...) for a process. From "Measurement of muscle proteolysis and the impact on muscle wasting"

"To effectively study the problems of muscle wasting, it is important to be able to measure over time changes in muscle mass, proteolysis and protein synthesis. By knowing how fast muscle is being lost and why it is being lost, effective therapies can be implemented to
maintain muscle mass and maximize muscle function, and, hence, minimize the health risks associated with depleted muscle mass."

There's nothing "bullshit" about what is a well established process of what the writer called ""muscle breakdown"

The net impact of "muscle breakdown" vs anabolic processes (building tissue) defines whether we lose tissue, gain it, or maintain it. There's no news there and it's bio 101 type stuff taught to first year undergrad types.

So, are you suggesting that muscles are actually created or lost? Note, I am attacking this linguistically. Don't mistake my attacking an obvious snake-oil piece with attacking reality. You don't lose or gain cells; your cells lose or gain mass. At least that is what I learned in my bio 101 course.

120mm
06-01-10, 00:21
Stop listening to doctors and those "so-called experts." What do they know anyway? Gosh, those fancy degrees and all of their research and clinical expertise, they are a bunch of voo-doo practitioners anyway.

Doctors, as a human category, have the most unhealthy lifestyles of any profession. And very few doctors actually look into the issue of healthy lifestyles on their own. What they do is project their "expertise" into areas they know jack shit about, on a regular basis, based upon ego, hubris and mythology.


Seriously...some of your comments go past insane and border idiocy.

Idiocy is listening to some quack who thinks they know something about things they've never really examined in detail. I've worked around doctors outside of their field, and a shocking amount of them think their ability to "doctor" gives them some innate power to be experts in a wide variety of non-doctor fields. It's no different with exercise science. Very few doctors understand it, but most will not pause to give advice on it as if they knew more than jack and shit about it.


Crash diets works for a very small percentage of people, and usually young, otherwise healthy people. It is irresponsible to recommend this to everyone, lest some poor schmuck goes into kidney failure or has some other nasty problem. I am glad crash dieting work for you and some others, but they cannot work for most people.

I think age is one of the most overstated variables here. I started when I was 43. Several others I know started in their 40s and later. At some time, one has to decide what is going to work for them. For the great majority of people, nothing will, because they will give up anyway.


I would agree that people like you, and some others on this board, are Type-A, goal-minded, hard-chargers (it's the nature of this site), and I am pleased that this method of weight loss worked for you. Sorry I seemed ass-hatish with this. Not my intent, but I don't want some poor dude to read your post and think that the way you lost weight is normal or healthy; or interpret that people with no medical knowledge outside of a few books you can pick up at Barnes & Noble can effectively discredit medical experts by armchair quarterbacking.

It's no different from the great majority of doctors, who have no experience of their own losing weight, or stopping smoking, or eating crap dispensing medical advice based on scanning an article in a medical journal or just being raised in an environment that apishly repeats the 1-2 pounds a week mantra. Along with "if it hurts, stop doing it".

Even my car mechanic knows that when my transmission acts up, the most cost-effective thing to do is send it to a transmission place to get it worked on. But I've only once had an MD admit that he didn't know fitness/weight loss and referred me to a specialist. (Who had no real-world experience, but had an advanced degree in it, but at least knew what she didn't know, which is refreshing from a medical person)

I am the leading expert in me. And the great majority of med advice on fitness I've received has been worthless to idiotic in nature. Or snake oil. but YMMV.

Low Drag
06-01-10, 06:39
Idiocy is listening to some quack who thinks they know something about things they've never really examined in detail. I've worked around doctors outside of their field, and a shocking amount of them think their ability to "doctor" gives them some innate power to be experts in a wide variety of non-doctor fields. It's no different with exercise science. Very few doctors understand it, but most will not pause to give advice on it as if they knew more than jack and shit about it.

You'll find that with most educated people. Education and being intelligent are not the same. I see people transfer their expertise all the time with similar results.

WillBrink
06-01-10, 07:53
So, are you suggesting that muscles are actually created or lost? Note, I am attacking this linguistically. Don't mistake my attacking an obvious snake-oil piece with attacking reality. You don't lose or gain cells; your cells lose or gain mass. At least that is what I learned in my bio 101 course.

Then you may need to read up beyond that as we do indeed lose cells, all the time in fact. Muscle wasting is not just a loss of muscle size, it's an actual loss of tissue, which happens to everyone as they age, and various other reasons. For example, from my article on sarcopenia:

"The medical term for the loss of muscle is sarcopenia, and it’s starting to get the recognition it deserves by the medical and scientific community. For decades, that community has focused on the loss of bone mass (osteoporosis), but paid little attention to the loss of muscle mass commonly seen in aging populations. Sarcopenia is a serious healthcare and social problem that affects millions of aging adults. This is no exaggeration. As one researcher recently stated:

“Even before significant muscle wasting becomes apparent, ageing is associated with a slowing of movement and a gradual decline in muscle strength, factors that increase the risk of injury from sudden falls and the reliance of the frail elderly on assistance in accomplishing even basic tasks of independent living. Sarcopenia is recognized as one of the major public health problems now facing industrialized nations, and its effects are expected to place increasing demands on public healthcare systems worldwide” (Lynch, 2004)

Sarcopenia and osteoporosis are directly related conditions, one often following the other. Muscles generate the mechanical stress required to keep our bones healthy; when muscle activity is reduced it exacerbates the osteoporosis problem and a vicious circle is established, which accelerates the decline in health and functionality.

What defines sarcopenia from a clinical perspective? Sarcopenia is defined as the age-related loss of muscle mass, strength and functionality. Sarcopenia generally appears after age 40 and accelerates after the age of approximately 75. Although sarcopenia is mostly seen in physically inactive individuals, it is also commonly found in individuals who remain physically active throughout their lives. Thus, it’s clear that although physical activity is essential, physical inactivity is not the only contributing factor. Just as with osteoporosis, sarcopenia is a multifactorial process that may involve decreased hormone levels (in particular, GH, IGF-1, MGF, and testosterone), a lack of adequate protein and calories in the diet, oxidative stress, inflammatory processes, chronic, low level, diet-induced metabolic acidosis, as well as a loss of motor nerve cells."

Cont: How To Prevent Age Related Muscle Mass (http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/sarcopenia-the-undiagnosed-epidemic/)

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 11:58
I have to admit that 1200 calories a day does not sound like much, but I will say this. I was never hungry. So I don't see how you can really call it a crash starvation diet.

I can break down a typical caloric day for me when I was on the diet if you wish:

Breakfast: Instant Oatmeal: 130 cal
Mid morning Snack: Apple: 75 cal
Pre lunch snack: Banana: 105 cal
Lunch: Two tacos from taco bell fresco style: 300 cal
Afternoon snack:2 cups fresh blackberries: 130 cal
Dinner: sensible dinner.. I usually tried to keep it about 500 calories. I would cook those dinners in a bag quite often. They are found in the freezer section. A half a bag (2 servings) is usually right at 500 calories.

So the above with a 500 calorie dinner would put me at 1260 calories for the day. And I was not hungry at all. Nor did I starve myself. Which is where the muscle loss comes from.

I must say, that the diet that I was on was very expensive. I ate a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables. A lot of it was green vegetables such as asparagus. I opted for fruits and vegies that were high in fiber. If I sauted any vegetables it was with one tablespoon of olive oil. Never ever cook with butter.

If you must have deserts I would make a lot of smoothies. I would make them with fresh fruit, splenda, skim milk(you can substitute yogurt if you wish), and crushed ice.

I always drank either water or diet pop.

120mm
06-01-10, 12:13
I have to admit that 1200 calories a day does not sound like much, but I will say this. I was never hungry. So I don't see how you can really call it a crash starvation diet.

I can break down a typical caloric day for me when I was on the diet if you wish:

Breakfast: Instant Oatmeal: 130 cal
Mid morning Snack: Apple: 75 cal
Pre lunch snack: Banana: 105 cal
Lunch: Two tacos from taco bell fresco style: 300 cal
Afternoon snack:2 cups fresh blackberries: 130 cal
Dinner: sensible dinner.. I usually tried to keep it about 500 calories. I would cook those dinners in a bag quite often. They are found in the freezer section. A half a bag (2 servings) is usually right at 500 calories.

So the above with a 500 calorie dinner would put me at 1260 calories for the day. And I was not hungry at all. Nor did I starve myself. Which is where the muscle loss comes from.

I must say, that the diet that I was on was very expensive. I ate a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables. A lot of it was green vegetables such as asparagus. I opted for fruits and vegies that were high in fiber. If I sauted any vegetables it was with one tablespoon of olive oil. Never ever cook with butter.

If you must have deserts I would make a lot of smoothies. I would make them with fresh fruit, splenda, skim milk(you can substitute yogurt if you wish), and crushed ice.

I always drank either water or diet pop.

I did the same, with a slightly larger breakfast and only one mid-morning snack. I occasionally regress to it because it's comforting (I look back to my weight loss with pride and fondness) and it seems like I am eating a ton of food, all the time.

One way mine differed from yours is that I moved one of those mid-morning snacks to a bedtime snack. I couldn't sleep at night without a little something in my stomach.

To triangulate on docs and exercise science: There is a large amount of medical docs that are fundamentally worthless for fitness and weight loss advice, and on the other side of the spectrum there is a metric shit-ton of snake oil salesmen and rip-off artists. The problem I see is recognizing those in between that are not out to scam you and can offer realistic and useful advice. In general, the more complex the concepts and the more absolutely they are presented, the more of a ripoff it's likely to be.

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 12:20
I did the same, with a slightly larger breakfast and only one mid-morning snack. I occasionally regress to it because it's comforting (I look back to my weight loss with pride and fondness) and it seems like I am eating a ton of food, all the time.

One way mine differed from yours is that I moved one of those mid-morning snacks to a bedtime snack. I couldn't sleep at night without a little something in my stomach.

To triangulate on docs and exercise science: There is a large amount of medical docs that are fundamentally worthless for fitness and weight loss advice, and on the other side of the spectrum there is a metric shit-ton of snake oil salesmen and rip-off artists. The problem I see is recognizing those in between that are not out to scam you and can offer realistic and useful advice. In general, the more complex the concepts and the more absolutely they are presented, the more of a ripoff it's likely to be.

That was pretty much the way I started my diet because I didn't want to blow my diet from being hungry all the time.

I ate two morning snacks because I had to eat breakfast so early. I had to be at work before 7am. So I had to eat breakfast at around 6am. With lunch being at noon. That is a pretty long break. So I would eat the mid morning snack at about 8, and then the other one about 10:30.

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 12:29
And I would like to reiterate something someone said earlier.

Losing 1-2 LBS a week is destined for failure. If you are on a diet and trying to lose weight. If you aren't seeing all your hard work pay off. You will quit. I don't care how determined you are. You will just plain give up. It's human nature.

You have to be committed and put the extra effort in and try to lose at least a LB a day in order to stick with it. That is what kept me going. Every day that I got on that scale it went down, by at least a LB. I never thought it would be possible. But it is.

Once I hit my target weight I started adding in calories, but kept my treadmill activity. Right now in order to maintain my current weight of 160LB. I did not put on fat I put on muscle just from the treadmill My calf muscles are quite huge.. LOL . But any way to maintain my weight I have to eat at least 4000 calories a day. And the only exercise I'm getting is walking on the treadmill for an hour a day. I am not a young pup as some have suggested either. I am 41 years old.

GunBugBit
06-01-10, 12:37
Nothing would ever have gotten done in civilization if people limited themselves to 45 minutes of physical activity.

WillBrink
06-01-10, 13:02
And I would like to reiterate something someone said earlier.

Losing 1-2 LBS a week is destined for failure.

I do not agree with that assessment.

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 13:32
I do not agree with that assessment.

I come from an extremely obese family. I have a lot of friends that are obese. And of course they have all "tried everything" and nothing works. according to them.

This is because when you are 365 LBS and you diet and exercise for a whole week. Thinking you are busting your ass. Only to look at the scale and see 364. You get in your mind. God this is going to take years to get down to a reasonable weight. Then it goes through their head; I can't sustain this for that long. Mainly because they are not used to it, and it just seems impossible to keep up with it.

Then their willpower will just break. I have seen it at least a hundred times just with family and friends.

Edit: Case in point my mother who was 365 LBS was put on a diet by her doctor. The only thing she was allowed to consume were these stupid protein shakes that came in an 8oz can. She drank those 3 times a day for 6 months. She lost 35LBS in those six months. Do you want to take a guess when she stopped her diet? Right then and there. She knew she couldn't keep it up for another 3 years.

I know your a doctor and if there isn't a scientific study, then it didn't happen. I'm sorry I haven't been published on my findings so you can just disregard anything I've said as to be heresy.

But If you are obese and start a diet and exercise regimen, and you look down at the scale at the end of the week and see a 5-6 LB weight loss. They will stick with it. 1-2 LBS just isn't worth it.

WillBrink
06-01-10, 13:49
I know your a doctor and if there isn't a scientific study, then it didn't happen.

I'm not a doctor and I have more "real world" experience then you and anyone in your family getting weight off people long term. That's a fact. As for my larger opinions on long term weight loss, my general outlook on that can be found here (http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/the-big-picture-of-permanent-weight-loss/) if interested.

You diet/lose weight however you feel works best for you, but your statement that "Losing 1-2 LBS a week is destined for failure" is incorrect.

Carry on. ;)

chuckman
06-01-10, 14:19
Doctors, as a human category, have the most unhealthy lifestyles of any profession. And very few doctors actually look into the issue of healthy lifestyles on their own. What they do is project their "expertise" into areas they know jack shit about, on a regular basis, based upon ego, hubris and mythology.

Idiocy is listening to some quack who thinks they know something about things they've never really examined in detail. I've worked around doctors outside of their field, and a shocking amount of them think their ability to "doctor" gives them some innate power to be experts in a wide variety of non-doctor fields. It's no different with exercise science. Very few doctors understand it, but most will not pause to give advice on it as if they knew more than jack and shit about it.

I think age is one of the most overstated variables here. I started when I was 43. Several others I know started in their 40s and later. At some time, one has to decide what is going to work for them. For the great majority of people, nothing will, because they will give up anyway.

It's no different from the great majority of doctors, who have no experience of their own losing weight, or stopping smoking, or eating crap dispensing medical advice based on scanning an article in a medical journal or just being raised in an environment that apishly repeats the 1-2 pounds a week mantra. Along with "if it hurts, stop doing it".

Even my car mechanic knows that when my transmission acts up, the most cost-effective thing to do is send it to a transmission place to get it worked on. But I've only once had an MD admit that he didn't know fitness/weight loss and referred me to a specialist. (Who had no real-world experience, but had an advanced degree in it, but at least knew what she didn't know, which is refreshing from a medical person)

I am the leading expert in me. And the great majority of med advice on fitness I've received has been worthless to idiotic in nature. Or snake oil. but YMMV.

I appreciate your comments, and I apologize if I was an ass. I know 'some' about fitness, but I do know a bunch about medical things, and the essence with which I disagree with your assertions are the value of crash dieting. I don't particularly care about what MDs say/don't say; I have the luxury of working at one of the best medical institutions in the world so I have advice at my fingertips from experts in just about everything. I would say, though, docs and the dispensation of their knowledge are like the rest of us, one big bell curve. I think you cut too broad a swath with the assumption of them as a group. I do agree, however, with your definition of idiocy. I, too, loathe any 'expert' who portends to give advice in subjects of which they really know little about.

As for crash dieting, I have seen knuckleheads to do stupid things, who didn't know their baseline values or had a decent H&P, who died from the 'benefits' of crash dieting, or had to go on dialysis, or had a heart attack. One of these was an active duty Marine. Again, I am glad it worked for you (I applaud anyone who can take off weight and keep it off safely); it does not, and can not, work for everyone.

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 14:37
I appreciate your comments, and I apologize if I was an ass. I know 'some' about fitness, but I do know a bunch about medical things, and the essence with which I disagree with your assertions are the value of crash dieting. I don't particularly care about what MDs say/don't say; I have the luxury of working at one of the best medical institutions in the world so I have advice at my fingertips from experts in just about everything. I would say, though, docs and the dispensation of their knowledge are like the rest of us, one big bell curve. I think you cut too broad a swath with the assumption of them as a group. I do agree, however, with your definition of idiocy. I, too, loathe any 'expert' who portends to give advice in subjects of which they really know little about.

As for crash dieting, I have seen knuckleheads to do stupid things, who didn't know their baseline values or had a decent H&P, who died from the 'benefits' of crash dieting, or had to go on dialysis, or had a heart attack. One of these was an active duty Marine. Again, I am glad it worked for you (I applaud anyone who can take off weight and keep it off safely); it does not, and can not, work for everyone.

I consulted with a doctor prior to me starting my diet. I had my values done up. And my baseline was 2400 calories. That is all I was burning in a day. In my job I am fairly sedentary. My job consists of me sitting in my comfy chair 8 hours a day staring at a computer monitor. I get practically zero exercise at my job. Then I would go home and veg on the couch. Seriously if I ate anything I would gain a pound.

That's when I asked my doctor what should I do for a diet. I also told him I wanted to boost my metabolism at the same time so that I could eventually consume more calories without gaining weight.

He suggested 1500 calories a day to start. I tried, but could not hit that target. I always seemed to be falling short by a couple hundred calories. I honestly didn't think 200 calories would or could be the difference in life and death.

I do have a question though for the people who know what they are talking about. While I was taking in anywhere between 1200-1300 calories a day, I was also burning 500/day in exercise. Now I know that brings my net calories down, but does that also negate anything I ate for the day. Does my body in all actuality think it only consumed 800-900 calories? That is the part that I'm a little blurry on.

I say this because I tried keeping a 2000 calorie diet and exercising on the treadmill. I lost zero weight. (To be honest with you that makes no sense. Since my baseline was 2400 calories)

Fyrhazzrd
06-01-10, 14:47
I'm not a doctor and I have more "real world" experience then you and anyone in your family getting weight off people long term. That's a fact. As for my larger opinions on long term weight loss, my general outlook on that can be found here (http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/the-big-picture-of-permanent-weight-loss/) if interested.

You diet/lose weight however you feel works best for you, but your statement that "Losing 1-2 LBS a week is destined for failure" is incorrect.

Carry on. ;)

I apologize, I made an assumption based on some of your responses. They sounded more medically based or technical than what someone not in the medical field would say.

WillBrink
06-01-10, 16:15
I apologize, I made an assumption based on some of your responses. They sounded more medically based or technical than what someone not in the medical field would say.

I have an extensive science background, but make no mistake, I have worked with hundreds in person, and millions via my articles, etc. on the very topic we discuss here. ;)

Abraxas
06-01-10, 16:27
I have an extensive science background, but make no mistake, I have worked with hundreds in person, and millions via my articles, etc. on the very topic we discuss here. ;)

I have been surprised to find out just how long and how in depth you have been at this.

warpigM-4
06-01-10, 16:46
somebody needs to tell the Army I remember Getting smoked in the Pit for 2 hours ,Not Fun ,Oh Hell it was a blast :D Mud in Places I didn't know I have

WillBrink
06-01-10, 16:47
I have been surprised to find out just how long and how in depth you have been at this.

You don't get a section dedicated to your posts on a no BS forum like M4Carbine.net 'cause you're a wanna be who gives out bad advice. :cool::rolleyes::cool:

Abraxas
06-01-10, 16:49
You don't get a section dedicated to your posts on a no BS forum like M4Carbine.net 'cause you're a wanna be who gives out bad advice. :cool::rolleyes::cool:
Too true

Azul
06-01-10, 22:08
The term exercise as referred to in the article is never laid out specifically. I would have suspected to see something as a duration of time the heart was kept at x% of maximum rate.

I have seen also read a few of these studies and the thing i can say about the people who do not get negative effects from long term exertion is that they are not normal! Seriously what percentage of people are actually considered athletic these days.

People are tuned differently, dont tell me for a second that an obese guy humping it on a treadmill has the same biochemistry as the ultra althete running a 50k.

While i think people tend to read these types of studies in the wrong fashion, the mechanism of cortisol is well understood. No single study or group of studies can single out a single factor overriding everything else. You should simply view it is, the observation of a single hormone during periods of exercise, and you should not draw conclusions in spite of all other evidence, but in light of it.

wild_wild_wes
06-01-10, 22:12
Nothing would ever have gotten done in civilization if people limited themselves to 45 minutes of physical activity.

Yes, and typically they died in their early 50s!

wild_wild_wes
06-01-10, 22:14
I consulted with a doctor prior to me starting my diet. I had my values done up. And my baseline was 2400 calories. That is all I was burning in a day. In my job I am fairly sedentary. My job consists of me sitting in my comfy chair 8 hours a day staring at a computer monitor. I get practically zero exercise at my job. Then I would go home and veg on the couch. Seriously if I ate anything I would gain a pound.

That's when I asked my doctor what should I do for a diet. I also told him I wanted to boost my metabolism at the same time so that I could eventually consume more calories without gaining weight.

He suggested 1500 calories a day to start. I tried, but could not hit that target. I always seemed to be falling short by a couple hundred calories. I honestly didn't think 200 calories would or could be the difference in life and death.

I do have a question though for the people who know what they are talking about. While I was taking in anywhere between 1200-1300 calories a day, I was also burning 500/day in exercise. Now I know that brings my net calories down, but does that also negate anything I ate for the day. Does my body in all actuality think it only consumed 800-900 calories? That is the part that I'm a little blurry on.

I say this because I tried keeping a 2000 calorie diet and exercising on the treadmill. I lost zero weight. (To be honest with you that makes no sense. Since my baseline was 2400 calories)

Your doc said 1900? I assumed you just went on a low-calorie diet on your own, my bad. My RMR is 2376, and my nurse said not to go below 1900, based on the metabolic test I took.

Azul
06-01-10, 22:18
Yes, and typically they died in their early 50s!


Only if you average in infant mortality, people past that phase lived relatively long lives even by todays higher standards.

I have gone -60 so far on my diet and its without calorie counting, im always satiated. 1-2 lbs per week is perfectly sustainable.

Cortisol is also released during stressful times. Your levels can be checked by getting an ASI(Adrenal Stress Index) test. For many people including myself exercise is a perfect time to release stress, along with getting alot of sleep and proper amounts of exercise.

GunBugBit
06-02-10, 12:12
Yes, and typically they died in their early 50s!
Well I don't think much of going on a bike ride and going 75 minutes without stopping, then another 60 minutes, then another...etc etc....I guess I should have died in my early 50s. Oops.

120mm
06-03-10, 00:09
I'm not a doctor and I have more "real world" experience then you and anyone in your family getting weight off people long term. That's a fact. As for my larger opinions on long term weight loss, my general outlook on that can be found here (http://www.brinkzone.com/articles/the-big-picture-of-permanent-weight-loss/) if interested.

You diet/lose weight however you feel works best for you, but your statement that "Losing 1-2 LBS a week is destined for failure" is incorrect.

Carry on. ;)

Losing 1-2 lbs a week is not destined for failure. Except for the vast majority of people who try it. Weight loss is more psychology than science. Or, rather, it's psychology predominant.

I just have never met a 40 something male who lost 1-2 pounds a week and kept it off. Ever. However, I've met a growing number of 40 something males who just got after it and dropped their 40-100 pounds in a few months and kept it off. Like me. And Fyrhazzard. Even Wes dumped his 100 pounds and kept it off.


I have an extensive science background, but make no mistake, I have worked with hundreds in person, and millions via my articles, etc. on the very topic we discuss here. ;)

What's your real success rate? Not to be an ass, but you have the luxury of claiming whatever effectiveness you choose. Your writing is good, in that you don't make any unsupportable claims, but Dr Piazza can claim to help thousands of people improve their "combat fighting skills" based upon volume of customers served.

Again, not to be an ass, but you just made an ego-based argument.


The term exercise as referred to in the article is never laid out specifically. I would have suspected to see something as a duration of time the heart was kept at x% of maximum rate.

I have seen also read a few of these studies and the thing i can say about the people who do not get negative effects from long term exertion is that they are not normal! Seriously what percentage of people are actually considered athletic these days.

People are tuned differently, dont tell me for a second that an obese guy humping it on a treadmill has the same biochemistry as the ultra althete running a 50k.

While i think people tend to read these types of studies in the wrong fashion, the mechanism of cortisol is well understood. No single study or group of studies can single out a single factor overriding everything else. You should simply view it is, the observation of a single hormone during periods of exercise, and you should not draw conclusions in spite of all other evidence, but in light of it.

I think the above post is very accurate and well-stated.

chuckman
06-03-10, 06:23
Losing 1-2 lbs a week is not destined for failure. Except for the vast majority of people who try it. Weight loss is more psychology than science. Or, rather, it's psychology predominant.

I just have never met a 40 something male who lost 1-2 pounds a week and kept it off. Ever. However, I've met a growing number of 40 something males who just got after it and dropped their 40-100 pounds in a few months and kept it off. Like me. And Fyrhazzard. Even Wes dumped his 100 pounds and kept it off.



Do you have numbers for the 'vast majority' who can't keep off weight at 1-2 pounds/week? What is the 'n' of your growing number of successful crash dieters?

Oddly, I know of more people who lost massive weight quickly and couldn't keep it off because they could not sustain the level of exercise and/or calorie deficit. The ones I know that have are in the mil and are surrounded by the climate that will help them be successful.

I agree that there is a strong psycho-social component to weight loss, and without that drive/will/determination, it doesn't matter if one tries to lose weight through crash dieting, traditional methods, or even gastric bypass, it ain't gonna work. You are spot on with this insight.

Fyrhazzrd
06-03-10, 07:18
Do you have numbers for the 'vast majority' who can't keep off weight at 1-2 pounds/week? What is the 'n' of your growing number of successful crash dieters?

Oddly, I know of more people who lost massive weight quickly and couldn't keep it off because they could not sustain the level of exercise and/or calorie deficit. The ones I know that have are in the mil and are surrounded by the climate that will help them be successful.

I agree that there is a strong psycho-social component to weight loss, and without that drive/will/determination, it doesn't matter if one tries to lose weight through crash dieting, traditional methods, or even gastric bypass, it ain't gonna work. You are spot on with this insight.

My biggest problem when I did my crash diet so many years ago, was that I couldn't stop losing weight. I started eating more and more and more, but the weight kept coming off. I wasn't doing anything different as far as exercise is considered. I was just walking on the treadmill. Same speed, and the same incline that I had been doing all along.

Like I said, I'm not a doctor. I am not going to pretend that I know why I kept losing the weight. But I can speculate. I am assuming that by exercising everyday as I was/am, that my metabolism was/is kicked into high gear.

It's not like I'm doing anything all that strenuous either. All I do is put a movie in the BluRay player and get on the treadmill for an hour. That's pretty much it. On weekends, I might do some push ups or sit ups. But that's it. It's not hard. I don't push myself. I'm not dying on the treadmill. I'm not breathing hard. I don't sound like I'm coughing up a lung, but I do sweat a lot, when I'm on the treadmill.

I've kept the weight off for what 5 years now, IDK maybe a little longer. I've lost track of when I actually lost the weight initially. It was somewhere between 5-8 years ago.

chuckman
06-03-10, 07:59
My biggest problem when I did my crash diet so many years ago, was that I couldn't stop losing weight. I started eating more and more and more, but the weight kept coming off. I wasn't doing anything different as far as exercise is considered. I was just walking on the treadmill. Same speed, and the same incline that I had been doing all along.

Like I said, I'm not a doctor. I am not going to pretend that I know why I kept losing the weight. But I can speculate. I am assuming that by exercising everyday as I was/am, that my metabolism was/is kicked into high gear.

It's not like I'm doing anything all that strenuous either. All I do is put a movie in the BluRay player and get on the treadmill for an hour. That's pretty much it. On weekends, I might do some push ups or sit ups. But that's it. It's not hard. I don't push myself. I'm not dying on the treadmill. I'm not breathing hard. I don't sound like I'm coughing up a lung, but I do sweat a lot, when I'm on the treadmill.

I've kept the weight off for what 5 years now, IDK maybe a little longer. I've lost track of when I actually lost the weight initially. It was somewhere between 5-8 years ago.

That's aweome, Fyr. When I got out of college, I lost a "metric shit-ton" (new fave phrase, thanks to whoever coined it) of weight, too. Many years later and in a much more sedintary job, I have to 'work' at exercise, fitting it in my schedule, but that psycho-social component that 120mm talked about is very important.

Your assessment that your metabolism kicked up is likely right and you and your body adapted. Not everyone is so lucky, my friend (definitely not me...).

WillBrink
06-03-10, 08:14
Losing 1-2 lbs a week is not destined for failure. Except for the vast majority of people who try it. Weight loss is more psychology than science.

There's a great expression used predominantly in the military: stay in your own lane. I like that expression, and do my best to abide by it. You are well outside your lane, and giving your personal experience is one thing vs making such statements above not supported by the data.

If the mods want to allow you to make such statements - which are counter to both the known physiology and data - that's their business. I think it's both potentially dangerous and counter productive to readers here.

Psychology is an essential component of long term weight loss (as outlined here (http://www.brinkzone.com/get-lean/psychology-101-of-weight-loss/) and in linked article above) but you are out of your lane making statements about the science, or lack there of regarding weight loss.

People who take the weight off quickly are those who also tend to put it back on. Those who permanently change their approach to eating, etc, and see it as a life long commitment and take the weight off slowly, are those who tend to keep it off and get the best effects in terms of losing fat vs muscle, which is essential for your metabolism. Obviously, exceptions exist, but that's well established.

Fyrhazzrd
06-03-10, 09:18
I think the major problem with people who lose weight and put it back on, is they are just plain lazy. I know it's a harsh statement. But the fact of the matter is; people in general once they hit their target weight. Will just stop what they are doing and go back to the same eating habits and just stop exercising.

Of course that is going to cause you to gain the weight back. It has nothing to do with how fast you lost the weight. If you lost 300 LBS doing it at 1 LB/Wk (I don't know anyone who could possibly stay on a diet for 6 years) But anyway if they hit their target weight and stopped everything they were doing to lose the weight. They will put the weight back on. Their metabolism will come to a screeching halt. It may take a few months for their metabolism to slow back down to where it was, but it will happen.

But if you at least keep up some assemblance of an exercise routine, there is no reason you can't keep the weight off. Or at least that has been my experience.

wild_wild_wes
06-03-10, 23:01
I am assuming that by exercising everyday as I was/am, that my metabolism was/is kicked into high gear.

It's not like I'm doing anything all that strenuous either. All I do is put a movie in the BluRay player and get on the treadmill for an hour. That's pretty much it. On weekends, I might do some push ups or sit ups. But that's it. It's not hard. I don't push myself. I'm not dying on the treadmill. I'm not breathing hard. I don't sound like I'm coughing up a lung, but I do sweat a lot, when I'm on the treadmill.


Sounds familiar. When my weight loss stopped, I thought my metabolism had slowed down, so I went to the hospital to get tested. To my surprise, my metabolism was much higher than typical for my age/weight; the nurse said this was because of all the exercise I was doing. But I had the opposite result than you: I stopped losing weight, prolly because my system had adjusted or something, but not from the dreaded "slow metabolism" you hear discussed on weight loss forums.

As far as your second point: non-strenuous exercise at low heart rates is the way to lose weight, because a higher percentage of your bodyfat is being utilized for fuel.

120mm
06-03-10, 23:12
There's a great expression used predominantly in the military: stay in your own lane. I like that expression, and do my best to abide by it. You are well outside your lane, and giving your personal experience is one thing vs making such statements above not supported by the data.

If the mods want to allow you to make such statements - which are counter to both the known physiology and data - that's their business. I think it's both potentially dangerous and counter productive to readers here.

Psychology is an essential component of long term weight loss (as outlined here (http://www.brinkzone.com/get-lean/psychology-101-of-weight-loss/) and in linked article above) but you are out of your lane making statements about the science, or lack there of regarding weight loss.

People who take the weight off quickly are those who also tend to put it back on. Those who permanently change their approach to eating, etc, and see it as a life long commitment and take the weight off slowly, are those who tend to keep it off and get the best effects in terms of losing fat vs muscle, which is essential for your metabolism. Obviously, exceptions exist, but that's well established.

Well, while we're talking about our respective "lanes", please post your before and after pictures from your large weight loss. I've posted mine, and therefore I think this is my "lane". I have real world experience with my 43 -46 year old body, and have either witnessed others, or heard others doing the same, in more or less the same fashion.

While we are talking about Mods, why don't we address the fact that you are using this and other forums to sell your "product". I seem to recall reading something in the rules when I signed up here about the sales and advertising of products being restricted to the appropriate forums.

No kidding, the "Will Brink Fitness Sales Industry" has infested each and every forum I frequent. And if you don't think Will Brink isn't selling his services and building his image by posting these articles, it is naivete in action.

120mm
06-03-10, 23:15
As far as your second point: non-strenuous exercise at low heart rates is the way to lose weight, because a higher percentage of your bodyfat is being utilized for fuel.

Non-strenuous exercise also avoids possible injuries and soreness that prevents/deters you from exercising more.

Very low risk, easy recovery from non-strenuous exercise.

120mm
06-03-10, 23:21
My biggest problem when I did my crash diet so many years ago, was that I couldn't stop losing weight. I started eating more and more and more, but the weight kept coming off. I wasn't doing anything different as far as exercise is considered. I was just walking on the treadmill. Same speed, and the same incline that I had been doing all along.

Like I said, I'm not a doctor. I am not going to pretend that I know why I kept losing the weight. But I can speculate. I am assuming that by exercising everyday as I was/am, that my metabolism was/is kicked into high gear.

It's not like I'm doing anything all that strenuous either. All I do is put a movie in the BluRay player and get on the treadmill for an hour. That's pretty much it. On weekends, I might do some push ups or sit ups. But that's it. It's not hard. I don't push myself. I'm not dying on the treadmill. I'm not breathing hard. I don't sound like I'm coughing up a lung, but I do sweat a lot, when I'm on the treadmill.

I've kept the weight off for what 5 years now, IDK maybe a little longer. I've lost track of when I actually lost the weight initially. It was somewhere between 5-8 years ago.

This tracks with my experience almost exactly. Once I got unstuck from my regular weight, my weight just plummeted. Over the last few months, I've crept up a little, but just by cutting out dessert, I dropped 10+ pounds extremely rapidly. I gotta work to maintain weight now.

WillBrink
06-04-10, 07:11
I have real world experience with my 43 -46 year old body, and have either witnessed others, or heard others doing the same, in more or less the same fashion.


I agree, people should follow your advice vs mine. Works for me. Good luck. ;)

Fyrhazzrd
06-04-10, 07:17
Well, while we're talking about our respective "lanes", please post your before and after pictures from your large weight loss.


Here is mine.

My Before Picture, I'm the guy 2nd from the right

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/bkpickell/Me/Before.jpg

My After Picture.. This is where I was losing too much weight..

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/bkpickell/Me/After.jpg

This is a more recent picture after I decided to put a little weight back on because I looked anorexic LOL.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/bkpickell/Me/Today.jpg

WillBrink
06-04-10, 07:43
Here is mine.
]

Good work there. Congrats on making the commitment and needed changes to lose the fat. ;)

ccoker
06-04-10, 09:23
I have been an avid cyclist for almost 20 years
a short ride is 2 hrs, a "good" ride is 4+

45 minutes doesn't even get me warmed up!

Palmguy
06-04-10, 09:44
As far as your second point: non-strenuous exercise at low heart rates is the way to lose weight, because a higher percentage of your bodyfat is being utilized for fuel.

Not personally questioning you WWW but is this actually true? Not that I've done a ton of research but I hadn't heard this before.

Thanks...

WillBrink
06-04-10, 09:58
Not personally questioning you WWW but is this actually true? Not that I've done a ton of research but I hadn't heard this before.

Thanks...

The "fat burning zone" that pushes lower intensity exercise because it uses fat at a higher % as the optimal way to lose fat was debunked a long time ago:

The non science general public version:

"It's true that the body burns a higher percentage of calories from fat during more mellow exercise like walking and easy cycling. But, when you pick up the pace for a higher-intensity cardio workout, you burn a greater number of overall calories (which should be your focus for weight loss) and subsequently just as much total fat."

Cont:

http://www.prevention.com/health/fitness/cardio/aerobic-exercises-and-fat-burning/article/9f3868f271903110VgnVCM10000013281eac____/

If you want the science version:

• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.

Cont:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Although low intensity steady state aerobics (LISS) has it's place and uses, it's a myth it's the superior form of exercise for fat loss.

chuckman
06-04-10, 10:10
Not personally questioning you WWW but is this actually true? Not that I've done a ton of research but I hadn't heard this before.

Thanks...

The answer is a definitive kinda-sorta. Will is the expert in this, but in a nutshell longer, slower exercise does burn a higher percentage of fat (before it burns carbohydrates), BUT high-intensity excerise burns more total calories (regardless of where the calories came from). The perfect exercise 'system' uses both. If you burn 300 calories from 30 minutes or so of walking up stairs, but only 200 calories from walking 30 minutes (at 3 mph), you burn more calories and will lose weight faster.

There is no science in losing weight. Burn more calories than you consume.

Fyrhazzrd
06-04-10, 10:11
I hate to go off topic, but Will's last post regarding thermal properties, caused me to remember something I read a long time ago. And I just wanted to know if there was any truth to it.

Hot peppers: I've heard that due to the properties of a hot pepper; while technically they have calories, but they will actually net you negative calories. I've heard this is true because they will raise your body temperature (Which raises your metabolism), causing you to sweat.

Is there any scientific evidence that supports the above claim?

Fyrhazzrd
06-04-10, 10:17
The "fat burning zone" that pushes lower intensity exercise because it uses fat at a higher % as the optimal way to lose fat was debunked a long time ago:

The non science general public version:

"It's true that the body burns a higher percentage of calories from fat during more mellow exercise like walking and easy cycling. But, when you pick up the pace for a higher-intensity cardio workout, you burn a greater number of overall calories (which should be your focus for weight loss) and subsequently just as much total fat."

Cont:

http://www.prevention.com/health/fitness/cardio/aerobic-exercises-and-fat-burning/article/9f3868f271903110VgnVCM10000013281eac____/

If you want the science version:

• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.

Cont:

http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-under-the-microscope-the-fat-burning-zone-fasted-cardio.html

Although low intensity steady state aerobics (LISS) has it's place and uses, it's a myth it's the superior form of exercise for fat loss.

I have another question regarding this situation as well: When I was in the army; I know the people teaching PT doesn't really know a whole lot about the science. But one thing they pounded into our brains. Is that if we were pushing ourselves to the point of hyperventilation that our bodies were seeing zero benefit from the exercise.

The reasoning behind this is due to our bodies needing oxygen in order to be able to burn the fat. By pushing ourselves and breathing really hard, are bodies aren't collecting enough oxygen to actually burn fat. It's only collecting enough oxygen to keep us going.

Palmguy
06-04-10, 10:22
Thanks to all who responded.

8200rpm
06-04-10, 13:41
The reasoning behind this is due to our bodies needing oxygen in order to be able to burn the fat. By pushing ourselves and breathing really hard, are bodies aren't collecting enough oxygen to actually burn fat. It's only collecting enough oxygen to keep us going.

Brink can probably address this much better than I can. Our bodies burn fat even after exercise. And higher intensity exercise is more effective in inducing post-exercise fat metabolism. Exercise should be seen as a way of changing how our bodies function, and not merely as a way of "burning calories" or "burning fat". This is why I personally dislike the calories in, calories out notion to fitness.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502

"Despite its lower energy cost, the [high-intensity intermittent-training] program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity [i.e. the fat layer under the skin] compared with the [endurance-training] program...

In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation."

The stress (your workout intensity) has to be significant enough to induce a neuro-endocrine response and ultimately metabolic adaptations.

Half-ass work = half-ass results.

WillBrink
06-04-10, 13:50
I have another question regarding this situation as well: When I was in the army; I know the people teaching PT doesn't really know a whole lot about the science. But one thing they pounded into our brains. Is that if we were pushing ourselves to the point of hyperventilation that our bodies were seeing zero benefit from the exercise.

The reasoning behind this is due to our bodies needing oxygen in order to be able to burn the fat. By pushing ourselves and breathing really hard, are bodies aren't collecting enough oxygen to actually burn fat. It's only collecting enough oxygen to keep us going.

I'm unclear what the question is that what I posted above does not answer. Can you rephrase and or give those articles a read and see if they answer your question? Thanx. :cool:

As mentioned, the entire working at efforts that keep you in the magic "fat burning zone" as the optimal way to lose fat is outdated and debunked as outlined above. Obviously, there are many other issues to exercise unrelated to trying to lose fat, and perhaps the Army trainers were trying to stress some other effect/outcome from your training.

Fyrhazzrd
06-04-10, 14:33
I'm unclear what the question is that what I posted above does not answer. Can you rephrase and or give those articles a read and see if they answer your question? Thanx. :cool:

As mentioned, the entire working at efforts that keep you in the magic "fat burning zone" as the optimal way to lose fat is outdated and debunked as outlined above. Obviously, there are many other issues to exercise unrelated to trying to lose fat, and perhaps the Army trainers were trying to stress some other effect/outcome from your training.

I guess the short version is, that if you push yourself to the point that you can't breath. Are you doing any good?

I know you said that pushing yourself is good, but I'm talking about pushing yourself to the point to where your hyperventilating.

WillBrink
06-04-10, 15:36
I guess the short version is, that if you push yourself to the point that you can't breath. Are you doing any good?

I know you said that pushing yourself is good, but I'm talking about pushing yourself to the point to where your hyperventilating.

Do you mean hyperventilating in the true medical term or just breathing really hard due to extremely challenging exercise? The two are quote different:

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/hyperventilation/article_em.htm

If you are talking about heavy breathing due to high levels of exertion, then those articles above cover the issue of whether or not there's "fat burning" benefits to it.

Fyrhazzrd
06-04-10, 16:31
It's kind of hard to explain, but I have seen people running on a treadmill that are breathing in such a way that they almost look like they are going to just keel over and die at any moment. Sometimes it's almost like panting, but not really. Or there are others that are taking really deep breaths in rapid successions. Like I said it's hard to explain, but what I'm talking about is not breathing heavy due to working hard. I know the difference.

I've pushed myself to the limit, and I have been breathing quite heavily, but my breathing was much more controlled breathing. Theirs was definitely not a controlled breathing.

I hope that makes sense.

WillBrink
06-04-10, 16:49
It's kind of hard to explain, but I have seen people running on a treadmill that are breathing in such a way that they almost look like they are going to just keel over and die at any moment. Sometimes it's almost like panting, but not really. Or there are others that are taking really deep breaths in rapid successions. Like I said it's hard to explain, but what I'm talking about is not breathing heavy due to working hard. I know the difference.

I've pushed myself to the limit, and I have been breathing quite heavily, but my breathing was much more controlled breathing. Theirs was definitely not a controlled breathing.

I hope that makes sense.

Without seeing it, can't really say what variation/type of breathing due to what, and such. Just know that, intense exercise well above the intensity levels that were considered best for "fat burning" is most effective for fat loss compares to LISS. However, LISS has it's uses, not everyone can do higher intensity work for various reasons, and etc. In fact, soon as I'm done typing this, I'm getting on my bike for a nice hour of LISS type training 'cause it's nice out and I don't feel like going to the gym. :D

wild_wild_wes
06-04-10, 17:03
I have another question regarding this situation as well: When I was in the army; I know the people teaching PT doesn't really know a whole lot about the science. But one thing they pounded into our brains. Is that if we were pushing ourselves to the point of hyperventilation that our bodies were seeing zero benefit from the exercise.

The reasoning behind this is due to our bodies needing oxygen in order to be able to burn the fat. By pushing ourselves and breathing really hard, are bodies aren't collecting enough oxygen to actually burn fat. It's only collecting enough oxygen to keep us going.

This is how I understand it from my research: fat needs more oxygen to burn than carbohydrate (in the form of glycogen stored in the liver); so at higher workout intensities, oxygen is mainly going towards respiration and is progressivly unavailable to use for energy production, therefore, the body preferentially burns the stored glycogen since it cannot burn enough fat to keep up with energy demands.

Here's the rub: when your liver glycogen is expended, the body goes into catabolism, converting muscle mass into fuel....hence the 45 minute workout limit.

chuckman
06-04-10, 18:13
This is how I understand it from my research: fat needs more oxygen to burn than carbohydrate (in the form of glycogen stored in the liver); so at higher workout intensities, oxygen is mainly going towards respiration and is progressivly unavailable to use for energy production, therefore, the body preferentially burns the stored glycogen since it cannot burn enough fat to keep up with energy demands.

Here's the rub: when your liver glycogen is expended, the body goes into catabolism, converting muscle mass into fuel....hence the 45 minute workout limit.

Now you are getting into Kreb's Cycle...some serious physiology. The 45-minute workout limit, though, doesn't necessarily make one go into a catabolic state. There are several factors which would contribute at a faster (or slower) pace, as well as exogenous factors.

wild_wild_wes
06-05-10, 00:00
Then my question is....how much stored carbohydrates are available for energy production during workouts? Because after they are exhausted, you are going to go into catabolism. How long you can go before that happens, that is the question.

Yojimbo
06-05-10, 06:57
Then my question is....how much stored carbohydrates are available for energy production during workouts? Because after they are exhausted, you are going to go into catabolism. How long you can go before that happens, that is the question.

This is why people who know what they are doing take supplements during longer workouts. Just drinking Gatorade during your workout will help replenish your glycogen and electrolyte stores enough to keep on going while minimizing the effects of catabolism.

I certainly do not buy into only working out for 45 minutes max becuase that type of advice often doesn't take in account using your brain...

Azul
06-05-10, 15:44
Your bodies next fuel source after your glycogen are depleted is amino acids(protein) through gluconeogenesis. This is why its important to replenish during and after workouts so you aren't cannibalizing yourself.


Aside from improper training, the only real thing i have heard that is bad for long duration exercise relates to long distance running and is only a fleeting hypothesis at best.
There is some minute evidence that long duration cardio vascular exertion(running in these studies) increases the cardiac risk profile.

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/15/1903.full
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332846?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1


Discussed in these following links
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/21/still-not-born-to-run.html
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/1/cardio-causes-heart-disease.html

Obviously there is alot of evidence going the other direction on this but its an interesting study.

Mjolnir
06-09-10, 12:28
The report is interesting and probably a bit exaggerated in it's conclusions. I do like to do extreemely intense bursts of whatever I'm doing with little rest between sets. When I do that 45 min seems about right. But to be honest sprinting 100% of capability for 200, 300 or 400 m with 100 to 200 m jogs inbetween not many CAN go for more than 1 to 1.5 miles which would be well under 45 minutes.

Waaay toomany variables. There is good info but you've got to think about it intelligibly, too.

HuntingTime
06-26-10, 23:37
How the study itself was conducted can raise questions. Were these people that exercised before? Did they do so for 45 minutes and more previously? This is like the study that said people who have more belly fat are more likely to die of a heart attack. Was it the belly fat acting on the heart or the fact that they didn't exercise so they grew belly fat and at the same time bad cardiac health.

Just follow the rule: All things in moderation! Including exercise and weight loss.

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 14:21
I am my own study. Over the past several years, I was typically doing 2+ hour Cardio workouts, six days a week, for very little weight loss if any; some months I actually gained on that regime! This year I limited myself to 45 minute workouts, except for the 3 month period I rode my bike into work (90 minutes each way). Doing two 45 minute Cardio sessions a day, the weight loss was exactly the same as the bike commute....that is, the same weight loss rate for half the effort, so obviously there is an infexion point somewhere, and diminishing returns once you pass it. I think it highly likely that point is around 45 minutes for most people.

I lost 54 pounds this year, finally breaking my years-long plateau.

BooneGA
01-01-11, 15:03
I had the opposite experience. I was at my lightest last december when I had been doing cardio involving 40-50 minutes each of running, biking, and swimming back to back one-two times a week.

Rick

wild_wild_wes
01-01-11, 16:22
How is that opposite?

BooneGA
01-01-11, 17:14
I should have gone into more depth. The cardio sessions were anywhere from 2-2.5 hours. My previous sesions over the course of the week added up to around that although shorter in length, but more frequent.

Rick

chuckman
01-01-11, 18:11
I am my own study.

Well, not really. Your evidence is anecdotal, and you can't control for many variables. There are very few topics few topics, weight loss and fitness among them, where people get passionate about what works for them (and for good reason), but unless you subject hundreds or thousands of people to the same regimen and control variables, you can't really say "x works," only "x works for me."

Congratulations on your weight loss and increased fitness. It is hard work and worth the reward.

jasonhgross
01-01-11, 19:10
Does it matter. Training hard, no gym grip and grin sessions with the gym dwellers, I can get a great hard workout in 45-60 min easily. On squat day (2 warm up sets, 3-4 hard work sets, one chill out set) I can do just those and some pull ups and be totally done.

300WM
01-01-11, 23:52
If I worried about what every study came up with, I would not look like I do at 48yrs old. It takes a half hour to get warmed up good. Remember, people who study stupid shit need jobs, too.

wild_wild_wes
07-05-12, 00:01
Came across another article:

"How much cardio exercise you should do, and when to do it, is a more complicated question. During extended bouts (over 45 minutes) of moderate to high intensity cardio exercise, your body will gradually increase the percentage of protein (stored in your body as muscle tissue) it uses for fuel. When exercise goes on for 90 minutes or more, the amount of energy provided by protein can be as high as 10-12%, compared to the normal 1-2%. So, doing cardio exercise for longer than 45 minutes at a time may be counterproductive if you are trying to increase muscle mass. The best bet for burning maximum calories without sacrificing muscle mass would be shorter, 20-40 minute bouts of higher intensity cardio exercise; interval training, or High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) would be ideal."

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=1024&page=4

panzerr
07-05-12, 08:07
So....how do you guys react to these studies?

Unless it is a peer-reviewed systematic review of many different studies it isn't worth getting your panties in a punch. Not that a guy should ignore singular studies. They just don't have that much power.

Yojimbo
07-05-12, 08:08
Came across another article:

"How much cardio exercise you should do, and when to do it, is a more complicated question. During extended bouts (over 45 minutes) of moderate to high intensity cardio exercise, your body will gradually increase the percentage of protein (stored in your body as muscle tissue) it uses for fuel. When exercise goes on for 90 minutes or more, the amount of energy provided by protein can be as high as 10-12%, compared to the normal 1-2%. So, doing cardio exercise for longer than 45 minutes at a time may be counterproductive if you are trying to increase muscle mass. The best bet for burning maximum calories without sacrificing muscle mass would be shorter, 20-40 minute bouts of higher intensity cardio exercise; interval training, or High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) would be ideal."

http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutrition_articles.asp?id=1024&page=4

You can easily beat that issue by...adding extra protein to your diet. Eat 1-2 grams( some people go higher than that) of protein per pound of body weight and you can limit the amount of muscle mass you loose. I find many of the recommended diets are way too low on protein and aren't geared for people are really training hard.

The muscle will only be used if you don't have a surplus of protein in your system. So eat up and train hard!

panzerr
07-05-12, 08:20
You can easily beat that issue by...adding extra protein to your diet. Eat 1-2 grams( some people go higher than that) of protein per pound of body weight and you can limit the amount of muscle mass you loose.



I don't see your body catabolizing itself if the two primary energy sources are available -fat and carbs.

Protein is a very poor energy source. The body only uses about 5% of the protein it takes in as energy because it creates waste products which then must be expelled. You would have to be in poor shape nutirionwise for your body to dig into its muscle. You would have to go several days without eating.

I would be more worried about the prolonged effects of elevated cortisol levels due to stress. Increased basal levels of cortisol would mean you are constantly exposed to its catabolic effects. Unless you are swimming the English channel, stress is more likely to burn your muscle than a workout.

Yojimbo
07-05-12, 08:26
I don't see your body catabolizing itself if the two primary energy sources are available -fat and carbs.

Protein is a very poor energy source. The body only uses about 5% of the protein it takes in as energy because it creates waste products which then must be expelled. You would have to be in poor shape nutirionwise for your body to dig into its muscle. You would have to go several days without eating.

I would be more worried about the prolonged effects of elevated cortisol levels due to stress. Increased basal levels of cortisol would mean you are constantly exposed to its catabolic effects. Unless you are swimming the English channel, stress is more likely to burn your muscle than a workout.

This is true, basically if you eat enough carbs and fat you can prevent the the use of protein and muscle.

I have a feeling that most of these studies are coming from people who are either limiting their diets to loose weight or not properly adjusting their diets to their activity level.

WillBrink
07-05-12, 09:27
This is true, basically if you eat enough carbs and fat you can prevent the the use of protein and muscle.



Limit yes, prevent no. It's simply a matter of energy systems and that can't be totally manipulated via diet. It's why studies generally find long distance runners need as much or more protein then strength athletes, because they can use 15% of their energy recs from protein, and if they aint eating it, it's coming from their muscle mass.

Strength athletes, as a rule, tend to eat more protein than they actually require, while endurance athletes tend to eat far less protein than they require, if left to their own devices.

Heavy Metal
07-05-12, 09:51
You want an eample of catabolism?

AT Thru Hikers that burn from 6500 to 8000 calories a day.

Cut, fit legs and twigs for arms.

WillBrink
07-05-12, 10:21
You want an eample of catabolism?

AT Thru Hikers that burn from 6500 to 8000 calories a day.

Cut, fit legs and twigs for arms.

Word. :dance3:

B52U
07-05-12, 10:56
How does this explain ultra runners who regularly run not just 45 minutes but 10 HOUR training runs and don't retain fat.

Yojimbo
07-05-12, 11:04
I think those AT Thru Hikers are the extreme.

My point is is simply that if your training sessions last more than 45 minutes you don't really need to worry about catabolizing your muscles if you are eating enough and supplementing your diet properly.

I am also not saying that you have to train longer than 45 minutes to get the best results. I am only saying the theory that it's best to limit your training to less than 45 minutes is flawed because it does not take a lot of other factors into consideration.

Grizzly16
07-05-12, 11:11
I am only saying the theory that it's best to limit your training to less than 45 miuntues is flawed because it does not take a lot of other factors into consideration.

This.

Just about any one sentence prescription for how to do an activity is flawed.

WillBrink
07-05-12, 12:17
How does this explain ultra runners who regularly run not just 45 minutes but 10 HOUR training runs and don't retain fat.

Ultra runners are the perfect example: they don't don't retain muscle, tend to be injured more than any athlete I know of, have compromised immune systems, and generally look like sh%& to boot. Regarding your comment on retention of fat, although they are generally lean, they are not as lean as sprinters for examples in general, who carry more muscle and less bodyfat:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/225px-Deriba_Merga.jpg

Vs

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/greene87.jpg

WillBrink
07-05-12, 12:18
This.

Just about any one sentence prescription for how to do an activity is flawed.

"Regular exercise is good" is one sentence and not flawed! I agree, just breaking chops. :D:p:D

Zhurdan
07-05-12, 12:30
Ultra runners are the perfect example: they don't don't retain muscle, tend to be injured more than any athlete I know of, have compromised immune systems, and generally look like sh%& to boot. Regarding your comment on retention of fat, although they are generally lean, they are not as lean as sprinters for examples in general, who carry more muscle and less bodyfat:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/225px-Deriba_Merga.jpg

Vs

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b374/willbrink/greene87.jpg

Curious. Is that because long distance runners primarily run with their legs and sprinters run with their whole body?

Seems like the long distance guys hardly move their upper body, whereas sprinters look like their whole skeleton is about to jump out of their bodies from head to toe.

WillBrink
07-05-12, 12:37
Curious. Is that because long distance runners primarily run with their legs and sprinters run with their whole body?

Seems like the long distance guys hardly move their upper body, whereas sprinters look like their whole skeleton is about to jump out of their bodies from head to toe.

I has mostly to do with the form of exercise itself (and the many variables within that), their nutrition, and other factors, some of which they can control, some of which they can't.

Grizzly16
07-05-12, 13:13
"Regular exercise is good" is one sentence and not flawed! I agree, just breaking chops. :D:p:D
Lol, my first reply was "any one sentence thing is wrong" then I noticed it was one sentence long... :help:

wild_wild_wes
07-05-12, 13:28
I would be more worried about the prolonged effects of elevated cortisol levels due to stress. Increased basal levels of cortisol would mean you are constantly exposed to its catabolic effects. Unless you are swimming the English channel, stress is more likely to burn your muscle than a workout.

That is what the studies I outlined in the OP said: elevated Cortisol levels for long periods causing excess catabolism.