Gator Country

ThomasGoldkamp · 04-17-2012, 04:41 PM

Body type has as much to do with metabolism as the actual shape, by my understanding. Ectomorphs have a very hard time putting on weight at all. I struggled, struggled, struggled to add any sort of meaningful weight in high school. Tried my ass off, for football, too.

Now my metabolism has slowed enough that I can control my weight directly (adding muscle if I want or slimming down if I want) simply by diet and working out. To be perfectly honest, that just wasn't the case for me before. Couldn't gain no matter what I did.

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATL_Gator

Neither

Both tastes equally delicious.

You're a rare bird. In any case,

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasGoldkamp

Body type has as much to do with metabolism as the actual shape, by my understanding. Ectomorphs have a very hard time putting on weight at all. I struggled, struggled, struggled to add any sort of meaningful weight in high school. Tried my ass off, for football, too.

Now my metabolism has slowed enough that I can control my weight directly (adding muscle if I want or slimming down if I want) simply by diet and working out. To be perfectly honest, that just wasn't the case for me before. Couldn't gain no matter what I did.

I put the 'ecto' in ectomorph and I'll bet I have the slowest metabolism on this board. This is simply because I have less tissue to maintenance. In general, Americans have never burned more calories than they do today simpler because they're bigger than ever.

Now, it is true that people like me typically burn more calories through non-exercise related activity than larger people do. But that's activity, not metabolism.

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 05:36 PM

Don't mind me, folks. You guys are the carefree teenagers in the horror movies. I'm just the grizzled old coot who emerges, from the background, and intones: "You're all going to die!"

My three-point argument against exercising so you can eat more:

(1) Exercise doesn't burn as many calories as you think.

(2) You'll never be able to burn as many calories as you'd prefer to shovel down your gullet. So, guess what ? You still have to compromise. This means you can eat less without needing to cut your wrist.

(3) There will come a time when (a) you get injured and can't exercise or (b) time constraints intervene. Then you will have to learn to eat less. But you're not going to want to. And if you're like the average American ... you won't.

ThomasGoldkamp · 04-17-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I put the 'ecto' in ectomorph and I'll bet I have the slowest metabolism on this board. This is simply because I have less tissue to maintenance. In general, Americans have never burned more calories than they do today simpler because they're bigger than ever.

Now, it is true that people like me typically burn more calories through non-exercise related activity than larger people do. But that's activity, not metabolism.

You just confused the hell out of me...

Walk me through this. You have a slow metabolism? But you burn a lot of calories through non-exercise related activity? What exactly does that mean? Isn't non-exercise related calorie burn essentially your metabolism, in a sense?

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasGoldkamp

You just confused the hell out of me...

Walk me through this. You have a slow metabolism? But you burn a lot of calories through non-exercise related activity? What exactly does that mean? Isn't non-exercise related calorie burn essentially your metabolism, in a sense?

Fair question. But here's the thing. People act like my calorie burn is an inscrutable thing. My Basal Metabolic Rate is probably under 1,500 calories. On the other hand, I'm probably much more active than the average American. If this were not the case I'd be an ectomorph with a belly.

**15gator05** · 04-17-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Don't mind me, folks. You guys are the carefree teenagers in the horror movies. I'm just the grizzled old coot who emerges, from the background, and intones: "You're all going to die!"

My three-point argument against exercising so you can eat more:

(1) Exercise doesn't burn as many calories as you think.

(2) You'll never be able to burn as many calories as you'd prefer to shovel down your gullet. So, guess what ? You still have to compromise. This means you can eat less without needing to cut your wrist.

(3) There will come a time when (a) you get injured and can't exercise or (b) time constraints intervene. Then you will have to learn to eat less. But you're not going to want to. And if you're like the average American ... you won't.

Wait... We're all gonna die? Then whats the f***ing point to all this!? Lol

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 15gator05

Wait... We're all gonna die? Then whats the f***ing point to all this!? Lol

That's the whole point. Stop exercising. Gorge yourself and get fat NOW before you die. That's where we're headed anyhow. Researchers tell us that, at present rates, if not before, EVERY American will be obese by 2040.

But there is a sliver of hope. If the Mayans were right, come 12/21/12, the unpleasant trend will be halted.

**15gator05** · 04-17-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

That's the whole point. Stop exercising. Gorge yourself and get fat NOW before you die. That's where we're headed anyhow. Researchers tell us that, at present rates, if not before, EVERY American will be obese by 2040.

But there is a sliver of hope. If the Mayans were right, come 12/21/12, the unpleasant trend will be halted.

The mayans failed to calculate in the extra leap year day so it may be sooner if it already hasnt passed so we may still be screwed. Lol

Dreamliner · 04-17-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 15gator05

The mayans failed to calculate in the extra leap year day so it may be sooner if it already hasnt passed so we may still be screwed. Lol

Eat, you fools! EAT! There's very little time!

LeafUF · 04-19-2012, 11:35 AM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21787904/

Cardio not that helpful for weight loss. Do it for fun and slight health benefits. Diet for weight management.

ryanhoward812 · 04-19-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafUF

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21787904/

Cardio not that helpful for weight loss. Do it for fun and slight health benefits. Diet for weight management.

Why just do both and be done with it? CRAZY I know

LeafUF · 04-19-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanhoward812

Why just do both and be done with it? CRAZY I know

Well it's actually not necessary. You can manage your weight without cardio and the roi of other exercises is a lot better anyway.

Dreamliner · 04-19-2012, 12:16 PM

Yeah, I was just going to say do both if you like ... for the respective benefits they confer. Exercise for its documented health benefits. Eat less to lose weight.

Dreamliner · 04-20-2012, 01:34 PM

I think it's amusing that a seemingly growing number of fitness trainers are jumping on the "Don't do cardio!" bandwagon and ... they're doing cardio!

Perhaps conveniently, they reduce the definition to something like "Cardio is any sustained activity more intense than walking and less intense than sprinting."

They then go on to champion HITT, as if intervals don't fit the description of cardio.

Dreamliner · 04-22-2012, 11:02 AM

Meanwhile, the "HITT vs. Steady-State" debate is as murky as ever.

Might it turn out that simply strength training and walking is an unbeatable combination for the ordinary joe who wants to look jacked ?

ThomasGoldkamp · 04-22-2012, 01:27 PM

I do think there's something to be said for HITT potentially keeping your muscle bulk lower than it would be otherwise. No study or data to back it up, just from experience. It was much harder for me to add functional muscle bulk during soccer season than football season. I always attributed it to the increased cardio work.

Dreamliner · 04-22-2012, 02:10 PM

The athlete may or may not need specific conditioning. But it's a crap shoot as to whether the type of conditioning they employ is an appropriate match for their sport. Phosphagen (short burst) ? Glycolitic (like intervals) ? Aerobic (low sustained) ? And if two or more, what ratio is appropriate ?

Neither HITT nor steady-state are even necessary for the average joe. I would say no. For the non-athlete certainly neither are necessary. Neither is particularly efficient for weight loss.

And if health is a concern then notable health benefits accrue from strength training and simply walking. Also, the trendline on aerobic exercise seems to call for gentler and gentler intensities even for competitive athletes.