Another interesting take....
Well, there I was, doing some research on what might be the best weight loss pills when I came across this article which does a very good job of trying to explain a new theory about why Americans are getting bigger and bigger, even though we seem to be excersizing more.
I read a couple of months ago that people in America were overall more active and definately made an effort to excersize more than we did a few decades ago, but some of the theories that tried to tie that to our expanding belts tended to revolve around portion size. I'm not sure if I agree with the author of the article, but he does make a convincing argument about how EXCERSIZE may actually be contributing to making us heavier. It's kind of a long article, so if you're stretched for time, here's the skinny...
When you excersize, you get hungry and tired. When you get tired, your self control takes a dirt nap. When you are hungry and have no self control, you overeat; often enough to negate, if not reverse, the progress made during your workout.
There are, though, some things that I wouldn't just let slide, such as the dry comparison that a pound of muscle will burn 6 calories for every 2 of fat, so for every ten pounds of fat you turn into muscle you burn an extra 40 calories a day. First off, that was taken straight from his article. I would have hoped that by now everyone would know that fat NEVER turns into muscle. The two types of tissue have completely different cellular structures and it is IMPOSSIBLE. I might address the REPLACEMENT of fat with muscle, however, which is what I'm sure he meant. He is, after all, apparently knowledgable. What I don't like about the 40 calorie bonus math is that it's too simple. I promise that if you drop ten pounds of fat, then develop ten pounds of muscle, you will burn a lot more than 40 extra calories a day. Why? Because muscle burns 6 calories a day AT REST. If you're building muscle, you WILL work out harder at the gym. You WILL take the stairs just because you can. You WILL walk farther to your car in the parking lot. You WILL walk faster, carry more, play with the kids, etc ad infinitum. And doing all these things will burn more calories.
Do I agree with the 40 calories if you drop the fat, build the muscle, then count the difference on days you sit on the couch playing video games? Naturally. Unless it's five pounds of muscle in each of your thumbs.
I like that it points out the flip side of excersize with only half a plan, or no plan at all, but I don't like that it seems to suggest that excersize for weight loss as opposed to health benefits is worthless and an old fad that will soon die. At any rate, I think the article actually does a great job of reminding us to be concious of what we eat, and make sure it fits into our goals. Until then, bodybuilders, sprinters, swimmers, and personal trainers across the nation excersize in addition to carefully alter their bodies compositions for better performance, physiques, and health, and until they are proven solidly wrong, stick with what works.
I read a couple of months ago that people in America were overall more active and definately made an effort to excersize more than we did a few decades ago, but some of the theories that tried to tie that to our expanding belts tended to revolve around portion size. I'm not sure if I agree with the author of the article, but he does make a convincing argument about how EXCERSIZE may actually be contributing to making us heavier. It's kind of a long article, so if you're stretched for time, here's the skinny...
When you excersize, you get hungry and tired. When you get tired, your self control takes a dirt nap. When you are hungry and have no self control, you overeat; often enough to negate, if not reverse, the progress made during your workout.
There are, though, some things that I wouldn't just let slide, such as the dry comparison that a pound of muscle will burn 6 calories for every 2 of fat, so for every ten pounds of fat you turn into muscle you burn an extra 40 calories a day. First off, that was taken straight from his article. I would have hoped that by now everyone would know that fat NEVER turns into muscle. The two types of tissue have completely different cellular structures and it is IMPOSSIBLE. I might address the REPLACEMENT of fat with muscle, however, which is what I'm sure he meant. He is, after all, apparently knowledgable. What I don't like about the 40 calorie bonus math is that it's too simple. I promise that if you drop ten pounds of fat, then develop ten pounds of muscle, you will burn a lot more than 40 extra calories a day. Why? Because muscle burns 6 calories a day AT REST. If you're building muscle, you WILL work out harder at the gym. You WILL take the stairs just because you can. You WILL walk farther to your car in the parking lot. You WILL walk faster, carry more, play with the kids, etc ad infinitum. And doing all these things will burn more calories.
Do I agree with the 40 calories if you drop the fat, build the muscle, then count the difference on days you sit on the couch playing video games? Naturally. Unless it's five pounds of muscle in each of your thumbs.
I like that it points out the flip side of excersize with only half a plan, or no plan at all, but I don't like that it seems to suggest that excersize for weight loss as opposed to health benefits is worthless and an old fad that will soon die. At any rate, I think the article actually does a great job of reminding us to be concious of what we eat, and make sure it fits into our goals. Until then, bodybuilders, sprinters, swimmers, and personal trainers across the nation excersize in addition to carefully alter their bodies compositions for better performance, physiques, and health, and until they are proven solidly wrong, stick with what works.
Comments