Quote:
Originally Posted by SDPT  Looks like I'm getting teamed up on. Muscle does burn more calories than fat obviously but it is not as much as most people will claim. When I am talking about raising metabolism I am refering mostly to EPOC after the workout where a persons metabolism will be raised for hours afterwords to repair damaged muscle fibers, replaced used up muscle glycogen.... |
Did you ever read the big Laforgia review, it's got pretty much every paper up to about 2006 in terms of EPOC?
Quote:
|
Can you seriously say that eating one to two meals a day at 800 calories is the same as eating 4 meals a day at 400 calories?
|
You really oversimplifying the human
body here. Similar in what sense?
Quote:
|
They both will equal 1600 calories so they are the same. This is clearly not the case and I hope you don't disagree with that.
|
In what sense?
Quote:
|
An another note I rereead that post and I still do not agree that you burn the same amount of calories if you have been doing the same thing in your workout routine. That is personal training 101 and it is why plateaus are usually hit.
|
Hahaha. Let's keep this civil friend. That is not personal training 101. I'm not sure how many people you've trained but that, by far and away, is not the reason for plateaus in my experience.
Quote:
|
The study they used in that posting first had to do with Lance Armstrong. I don't think you can compare a study with Lance Armstrong to the general population.
|
You really missed the message of that article.
Namely these points:
- Tracked over approximately 7 years of training, Lance improved his efficiency by a whopping 8%. Or roughly 1% PER YEAR.
- “It is hypothesized that the improved muscular efficiency probably reflects changes in muscle myosin type stimulated from years of training intensely for 3-6 h on most days.”
- Read that closely, three to six hours of cycling per day damn near EVERY DAY to get a 1% efficiency increase PER YEAR.
- And yet, somehow, folks think that walking on the
treadmill a few times per week is going to ramp up their efficiency such that they are burning massively less
calories during their workouts after a few weeks.
- Note: a recent controversy has erupted over the paper I cited above. There are now accusations that Coyle mis-analyzed the data; the re-intrepretation suggests that Lance actually did not improve his efficiency much at all. Which is yet another nail in the coffin of the entire argument:
- if Lance Armstrong, cycling 6 hours per day damn near daily for years on end isn’t becoming more efficient, someone walking on the
treadmill a few times per week damn sure isn’t either.
Quote:
|
It is obvious that it will be hard for him to improve energy efficiency with the amount he has trained. If you take a normal person trying to lose weight they probably haven't done anything before and they will see dramatic effeciency improvements in the beginning of their workout.
|
You are misapplying the information.
Quote:
|
I'm not trying to start any fights here I just want to make sure everything I am saying makes sense and that I just disagree with what was stated from others.
|
This isn't a fight.
No way.
It's simply a discussion of the data at hand.
Quote:
|
There is no one right way to train I just have preferences to certain training techniques that have worked for my clients.
|
This isn't about training methodology. It's about physiological principles.
