 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2004opinions on excersise bike??
iv got an excersise bike which shows caliories burnt, its fairly accurate for the average person and iv looked on websites and their estimated calories burnt whilst cycling stationary are the same as the bike says, just varies on the weight of you. im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and make u chunky , i only do about 10min or maybe more a day just to get my heart working a little bit more, is this good excersise or not, am i wasting my time doing it for only 10 min a day, is it gonna give me benifits or not, on occasion every now and then i do half hour, but its better then doing nowt right yea??? you should do at least 30 mins at a time to get benefits. And at least 3 times a week. The latest reports actually recommend to exercise for 1hr at least 3 times a week. You will not build enough muscle in your legs to make them "bulky". Get on that bike and get peddling! > iv got an excersise bike which shows caliories burnt, its fairly accurate > for the average person and iv looked on websites and their estimated [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > do half hour, > but its better then doing nowt right yea??? > im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and > make u chunky , Let's talk about muscles for a minute. Muscle mass is metabolically active. It needs fuel just to exist. That means that more muscle on your thighs means you burn more fat 24 hours a day. Burning fat means you dip into the fat stores on your thighs. Ergo, more muscle on your thighs means your thighs get thinner, as long as you eat the same amount. (Case in point: I've been working my thighs quite seriously doing weight-lifting for the past year and my thigh measurement has dropped by two full inches in that time.) > i only do about 10min or maybe more a day just to get my heart working a > little bit more, > is this good excersise or not, am i wasting my time doing it for only 10 min > a day, is it gonna give me benifits or not, on occasion every now and then i > do half hour, > but its better then doing nowt right yea??? Are those the two choices? 10 minutes or nothing? Then ten minutes is a winner. My experience was that it was important to make daily exercise normal in my life before I could work on either the quality of that exercise or work on tackling the food issues. By normal I mean I just do it without arguing, the same way I brush my teeth each day. I don't ever sit around thinking, "I think I'll skip teeth brushing. I really don't like it and it takes time and I'd rather go straight to bed." I just brush my teeth because it needs doing. No drama, no calendars with stars for the days I brushed my teeth, it's just a normal part of my life. That's what exercise is for me NOW. (I just got back from a run outside in the mud with my dog.) If you don't have exercise that regular in your life then cut yourself some slack about the QUALITY of the exercise and just work on getting it done. Do it day after day after day until it becomes a habit. Then you can tackle how to use that time best. Do this in baby steps. You've got the rest of your life to get these routines worked out. Dally >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and >> make u chunky , > > Let's talk about muscles for a minute. Muscle mass is metabolically > active. It needs fuel just to exist. Supposedly, a pound of muscle burns 35 calories per day. http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article887.html So, if you add 5 lbs of muscle -- a very sizable amount, especially for a woman -- these extra 5 lbs will burn extra 140 calories. Hardly a big "metabolism boost". 140 calories is about 18 almonds, much less than a fistful. > That means that more muscle on > your thighs means you burn more fat 24 hours a day. Well, not by much. > Burning fat means > you dip into the fat stores on your thighs. Ergo, more muscle on your > thighs means your thighs get thinner, as long as you eat the same amount. I thought that there is no such thing as spot reduction. > (Case in point: I've been working my thighs quite seriously doing > weight-lifting for the past year and my thigh measurement has dropped by > two full inches in that time.) That's because you lost fat everywhere. >> i only do about 10min or maybe more a day just to get my heart working a >> little bit more, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > By normal I mean I just do it without arguing, the same way I brush my > teeth each day. Great analogy with brushing teeth. My take on this quest for increasing metabolism is that this effort is completely misdirected for two reasons. One is that the metabolism boost from, say, extra muscle is quite negligible, as I showed. Besides, it is hard to build much more muscle while dieting. Supposedly, just preserving the muscle is great for an exercising dieter who is losing weight. Secondly, the "lower metabolism", as such, may be a sign that the body adapts to lower calorie intake, and can be associated with life prolonging effects of calorie restriction. (check out www.caloriesestriction.org, and Roy Walford's Beyond 120 Year Diet) And "higher metabolism", can easily be causing a need to eat more and higher appetite, thus not having the desired effect of "fat loss". Exercise is great and building muscle is a wonderful process, although hard to do for a person losing weight, harder for females, and at any rate it is a very slow process. I would simply hate to see someone have unrealistic expectation about just how much muscle they can build, how much energy those muscles will burn, that the extra energy would not demand eating more, etc. I personally want to gain 5 lbs of muscle this year, but have no expectation that it will somehow improve my metabolism by much. And quite possibly, I will fail to reach my goal. i >>>im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and >>>make u chunky , >> >>Let's talk about muscles for a minute. Muscle mass is metabolically >>active. It needs fuel just to exist. > Supposedly, a pound of muscle burns 35 calories per day. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Muscle demands more fat-burning enzymes so you are more capable of using the fat you've got when you exercise rather than just depleting glycogen reserves and getting hungry. Muscle mass helps you to be less insulin resistant which means you are less likely to store excess calories as fat (and more likely to burn them off in the course of extra fidgeting, etc during the day.) Muscle also makes you less prone to injury, more comfortable with activity and, as we've discussed, building muscle is a self-re-enforcing behavior to all the rest of the weight-loss behaviors. >>(Case in point: I've been working my thighs quite seriously doing >>weight-lifting for the past year and my thigh measurement has dropped by >>two full inches in that time.) > > That's because you lost fat everywhere. But she was worried that building muscles in her thighs would make her thighs bigger. It didn't. I've also lost nearly 10 inches off my waist in the past 22 months. There's a rumor that doing ab crunches can make your waist thicker. I'm telling you that building muscle helps me to burn fat which helps me to be thinner. > My take on this quest for increasing metabolism is that this effort is > completely misdirected for two reasons. One is that the metabolism > boost from, say, extra muscle is quite negligible, as I > showed. Besides, it is hard to build much more muscle while > dieting. Supposedly, just preserving the muscle is great for an > exercising dieter who is losing weight. Newbies can gain muscle (and glycogen reserves) while losing fat for up to about six months. It's common. It's just not duplicatable after you've been working out for years. > Secondly, the "lower metabolism", as such, may be a sign that the body > adapts to lower calorie intake, and can be associated with life > prolonging effects of calorie restriction. (check out > www.caloriesestriction.org, and Roy Walford's Beyond 120 Year Diet) I've heard you say this before. It sounds like bullshit to me. I haven't had time to read your links so I'll leave it at that - just a word to the readers that there is significant disagreement about your whole "more efficient" metabolism shtick. > And "higher metabolism", can easily be causing a need to eat more and > higher appetite, thus not having the desired effect of "fat loss". Possibly. I find exercise lowers my appetite, though. > Exercise is great and building muscle is a wonderful process, although > hard to do for a person losing weight, harder for females, and at any > rate it is a very slow process. Not for newbies. > I would simply hate to see someone > have unrealistic expectation about just how much muscle they can > build, how much energy those muscles will burn, that the extra energy > would not demand eating more, etc. The poster is in no peril of trying to gain too much muscle from 10 minutes of exercise biking. > I personally want to gain 5 lbs of muscle this year, but have no > expectation that it will somehow improve my metabolism by much. And > quite possibly, I will fail to reach my goal. I've gained 1 pound of muscle (and lost about 9 pounds of fat) in the past three months doing Bryon Haycock's Hypertrophy Specific Training. Dally >>>>im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and >>>>make u chunky , [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > less likely to store excess calories as fat (and more likely to burn > them off in the course of extra fidgeting, etc during the day.) That would be accounted for in the 35 calories per day number, I would think. What you seem to be saying is that a pound of muscle burns more than 35 calories, and some references would be required. > Muscle also makes you less prone to injury, more comfortable with > activity and, as we've discussed, building muscle is a self-re-enforcing > behavior to all the rest of the weight-loss behaviors. That is undeniably true. All I want is to not create excess expectations. >>>(Case in point: I've been working my thighs quite seriously doing >>>weight-lifting for the past year and my thigh measurement has dropped by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But she was worried that building muscles in her thighs would make her > thighs bigger. You made a good objection, but as a man, I always liked women with big muscular thighs. There was one woman in the health club where I used to go, doing aerobics like crazy, always sweaty, with beautiful big muscular thighs. She was a joy to look at. > It didn't. I've also lost nearly 10 inches off my waist in the past > 22 months. There's a rumor that doing ab crunches can make your > waist thicker. I'm telling you that building muscle helps me to > burn fat which helps me to be thinner. Your progress has been exemplary Dally. Being strong somehow makes me feel better and also improved my posture. I have however, to make sure that my front upper body is as well developed as the back, to avoid "stooping" position and back problems. I am not convinced that I address my back development adequately. >> My take on this quest for increasing metabolism is that this effort is >> completely misdirected for two reasons. One is that the metabolism [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to about six months. It's common. It's just not duplicatable after > you've been working out for years. Gaining glycogen is not quite the same as really growing the muscle mass. My opinion only. >> Secondly, the "lower metabolism", as such, may be a sign that the body >> adapts to lower calorie intake, and can be associated with life [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a word to the readers that there is significant disagreement about > your whole "more efficient" metabolism shtick. I can gift you the earlier edition of Walford's book (I bought a newer edition since). A very good read, he is very good to point out what is a conjecture and what is corroborated by studies. Just tell me where to mail it. >> I would simply hate to see someone >> have unrealistic expectation about just how much muscle they can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The poster is in no peril of trying to gain too much muscle from 10 > minutes of exercise biking. True. >> I personally want to gain 5 lbs of muscle this year, but have no >> expectation that it will somehow improve my metabolism by much. And >> quite possibly, I will fail to reach my goal. > > I've gained 1 pound of muscle (and lost about 9 pounds of fat) in the > past three months doing Bryon Haycock's Hypertrophy Specific Training. 1 lb in 3 months for a female is outstanding!!! How did you measure such a small difference? i > I've gained 1 pound of muscle (and lost about 9 pounds of fat) > in the past three months doing Bryon Haycock's Hypertrophy > Specific Training. Just curious, how did you measure that? >>I've gained 1 pound of muscle (and lost about 9 pounds of fat) >>in the past three months doing Bryon Haycock's Hypertrophy >>Specific Training. > > Just curious, how did you measure that? I've been using a tape measure method for a year and a half where I take my age, activity level, weight and three tape measurements and plug them into a formula at http://www.biofitness.com/bodyfat.html. I've had it calibrated a few times and I'm always within a % when I do calipers or a bio-impedance thing I had done at a spa, so this method is working pretty well for me. Other people find other calculators are more accurate for them. In general, any two measurements aren't significant. But I measure weekly and the trend is pretty clear when you look past the noise. Dally >>>I've gained 1 pound of muscle (and lost about 9 pounds of fat) >>>in the past three months doing Bryon Haycock's Hypertrophy [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dally Okay, that makes sense. It's sort of like a "moving average" in stock market terms! > Dally <dally@myself.com> wrote in >> In general, any two measurements aren't significant. But I >> measure weekly and the trend is pretty clear when you look past >> the noise. > Okay, that makes sense. It's sort of like a "moving average" in > stock market terms! I do running average of my weight measurements, averaged over 1 week, automatically by a computer script: http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ http://igor.chudov.com/~ichudov/cgi-bin/running-average-weight.cgi i > http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ Impressive diligence. I'm guessing you got a digital scale Septermber 5th! Or maybe just change the Int to Real I'm still closer to your 'before' picture, and also started at BMI 31. I am making progress, but it's slow. I had my bodyfat tested last week and it's at 27. I started at 250, and I'm down to a new composition weight of 238. I can now were some of my 10-year old size L clothing, instead of the usual XL (even the Xl's were getting tight). >> http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ > > Impressive diligence. I'm guessing you got a digital scale > Septermber 5th! Or maybe just change the Int to Real I did get a digital scale around that time. The running average is calculated automatically. > I'm still closer to your 'before' picture, and also started at BMI > 31. I am making progress, but it's slow. I had my bodyfat tested > last week and it's at 27. I started at 250, and I'm down to a new > composition weight of 238. I can now were some of my 10-year old > size L clothing, instead of the usual XL (even the Xl's were getting > tight). Not a bad start. i > >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and > >> make u chunky , [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Supposedly, a pound of muscle burns 35 calories per day. Let's see - 140 calories a day = 51,100 divided by 3500 = 14.6 pounds in a year. Question: Are we looking for quick fixes or long term solutions? > http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article887.html > > So, if you add 5 lbs of muscle -- a very sizable amount, especially > for a woman -- these extra 5 lbs will burn extra 140 calories. Hardly > a big "metabolism boost". 140 calories is about 18 almonds, much less > than a fistful. >> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs > and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let's see - 140 calories a day = 51,100 divided by 3500 = 14.6 pounds in a > year. Question: Are we looking for quick fixes or long term solutions? Skipping an equivalent of 2 oreo cookies per day would create the same 51,100 calories per day difference. So, while the effect obviously exists, it is rather small, which was my point. i >> http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/article887.html >> >> So, if you add 5 lbs of muscle -- a very sizable amount, especially >> for a woman -- these extra 5 lbs will burn extra 140 calories. Hardly >> a big "metabolism boost". 140 calories is about 18 almonds, much less >> than a fistful. >>> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs >> and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >So, while the effect obviously exists, it is rather small, which was >my point. Ah, but... the exercise, combined with skipping those 2 oreo cookies and a regular can of coke, and you've got yourself 45lbs in a year. > >>> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs > >> and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the exercise, combined with skipping those 2 oreo cookies and a > regular can of coke, and you've got yourself 45lbs in a year. And that doesn't even take into the account the calories burned while exercising - just the effect on resting metabolism. j >> the exercise, combined with skipping those 2 oreo cookies and a >> regular can of coke, and you've got yourself 45lbs in a year. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >j LOL, I forgot this was a debate on added muscle, not on the 10 min of bike exercise... :-) So, to correct my statement. Added muscle, combined with skipping 2 oreos and for good measure we'll throw in the can of coke, and you've just netted 45lbs in 1 yr. Then you can consider the extra exercise it took to make the muscle - which then of course has its own net affect on metabolism too. >>>> In article <c2g391$1t65v8$1@ID-217902.news.uni-berlin.de>, >>>> Dally wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the exercise, combined with skipping those 2 oreo cookies and a > regular can of coke, and you've got yourself 45lbs in a year. MAthematically, this is right, but I don't think it works that way. Our bodies try to balance things out on a daily basis and I'll bet that if you did everything else right and ate the two oreos, you might gain a few extra pounds, but not 45. It would be an interesting study, sort of like that guy that ate every meal at McDonald's for a month and put 25 pounds on (as well as jacking his BP, cholesterol and triglycerides). >MAthematically, this is right, but I don't think it works that way. >Our bodies try to balance things out on a daily basis and I'll bet >that if you did everything else right and ate the two oreos, you >might gain a few extra pounds, but not 45. 2 oreos would be equal to 15lbs, not 45. You'd have to read the whole thread to catch the whole thing. Bottom line was - small changes compiled together can lead to big changes in weight. >It would be an interesting study, sort of like that guy that ate >every meal at McDonald's for a month and put 25 pounds on (as well >as jacking his BP, cholesterol and triglycerides). I read that article this morning. Quite interesting. >>MAthematically, this is right, but I don't think it works that >>way. Our bodies try to balance things out on a daily basis and >>I'll bet that if you did everything else right and ate the two >>oreos, you might gain a few extra pounds, but not 45. Okay, I read only about half of it . > 2 oreos would be equal to 15lbs, not 45. You'd have to read the > whole thread to catch the whole thing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I read that article this morning. Quite interesting. Scary experiment, IMO. Like Shelly winters putting on 50 pounds for Posieden Aventure (forgive my spelling) then she never took it off. > Scary experiment, IMO. Like Shelly winters putting on 50 pounds > for Posieden Aventure (forgive my spelling) then she never took it > off. and how many other hollywood actors have done similar. Look at Tom Hanks, Sly Stallone, and most recently there has been Renee Zellweger. But those are all people who are paid millions to get their body to look the way it does. >> Scary experiment, IMO. Like Shelly winters putting on 50 >> pounds for Posieden Aventure (forgive my spelling) then she [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Zellweger. But those are all people who are paid millions to > get their body to look the way it does. Yes, exactly. DeNiro gained 60 for Raging Bull in three months, shot the fat scenes, then lost it in ONE month! Of course, he was younger then! > >> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs > > and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > i Point taken. However, it is often the aggregate effect of many small changes that make for the big changes. Skipping two Oreos and adding muscle and reaping the daily benefits of calories burned through exercise and eating better foods, etc. etc. act synergistically to promote weight loss. It is true that one can eliminate one or more of those options and still be successful but each small change can accelerate progress and work towards maintaining a healthy weight in the long run. I tend to lose weight very slowly. Losing an additional pound each month simply because I have five additional pounds of muscle, which looks good anyway and prevents injury, is rather like Christmas in my book! j >> >> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and > thighs [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > simply because I have five additional pounds of muscle, which looks good > anyway and prevents injury, is rather like Christmas in my book! Julianne, do you lose weight slowly because it is difficult for you to eat much less than the maintenance amount of calories? If that is so, do you think that raising your maintenance amount by adding muscle would not change how much undereating you can tolerate? i > >> >> >> im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and > > thighs [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > i I tend to lose weight slowly because frankly, my weight is not nearly the concern for me that my health is. I am 5'4" and weigh 137 this morning. I wear a size eight and though I would be much more attractive with another 20 pounds gone, no one would look at me and think I was obese. I would like to eventually end up in the low 120's but vanity doesn't motivate me. Rather, my health does. I am the poster child for insulin resistance which can be reversed by exercise and a low glycemic diet. If not reversed, the chances of getting Diabetes are very high. Therefore, my focus is more on my health. When I began eating this way and exercising, it was exceedingly difficult to lose weight - one symptom of high circulating insulin levels. As my insulin and blood sugars got more in control, the weight began to come off at a normal rate. As summer nears, I have ramped up the effort to lose a few more pounds as it is very hot down here in the summer time and the only comfy attire is not figure concealing. j >> Julianne, do you lose weight slowly because it is difficult for you to >> eat much less than the maintenance amount of calories? If that is so, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nearly the concern for me that my health is. I am 5'4" and weigh > 137 this >morning. I That's very slender!!! Good job. I am fatter than you, BMI wise. Kudos on wanting to lose weight slowly, Ihave the same approach to losing weight nowadays, I only want to lose 1 lb per month. > wear a size eight and though I would be much more attractive with another 20 > pounds gone, I am not so sure, to be honest. It depends on who you want to be impressed. >no one would look at me and think I was obese. I would like to > eventually end up in the low 120's but vanity doesn't motivate me. Rather, > my health does. I am the poster child for insulin resistance which can be > reversed by exercise and a low glycemic diet. If not reversed, the chances > of getting Diabetes are very high. Therefore, my focus is more on my > health. I could have said the same thing about myself. It is my present opinion that modest calorie restriction and eating low GI foods will help my health stay well for longer. > When I began eating this way and exercising, it was exceedingly > difficult to lose weight - one symptom of high circulating insulin levels. > As my insulin and blood sugars got more in control, the weight began to come > off at a normal rate. As summer nears, I have ramped up the effort to lose > a few more pounds as it is very hot down here in the summer time and the > only comfy attire is not figure concealing. I cannot see you, but my mental image of a 137 lbs 5'4" woman is that the less concealing she is, the better she looks. i > iv got an excersise bike which shows caliories burnt, its fairly accurate > for the average person and iv looked on websites and their estimated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > im told if u cyle a lot on it, it builds muscle in your legs and thighs and > make u chunky , Huh? Funny, I've never, ever seen a *chunky* professional bike racer...never. Not gonna happen. Martha >> iv got an excersise bike which shows caliories burnt, its >> fairly accurate for the average person and iv looked on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Martha I once heard that Lance Armstrong's resting pulse was 25. Don't know if it's true, but damn! > iv got an excersise bike which shows caliories burnt, its fairly > accurate for the average person and iv looked on websites and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > occasion every now and then i do half hour, > but its better then doing nowt right yea??? Every little bit helps, though to burn fat, you generally need to break a sweat (about 20 minutes for most people). The usual formula is (220 minus your age) time .75. (Range is actual 65-80 percent) Example: For me this is 220-48=172 times .75 = 129 beats per mninute or roughly 22 per 10 second count. If fat burning is your goal, stay in that range. Gowing slower burns sugar (glycogen?), going faster can actually burn muscle (protein) as well as fat, though it's good for you heart. I don't bikes anymore, because of the "male condition" numbness caused by most exercise bikes which don't have newer split seats, but I used to find that me outter quads would get firm, but not bulky. There just isn't enough stress on the muscle to do that. I'm sure there are several other philosophies. These are what I've leaned. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.