Interesting article on fat loss

hiitdogs

hiitdogs

Cathlete
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826120//

Interesting how thinks change over the years. What's the newest and greatest one year, is outdated or proven wrong a few years later.

I guess I am going to stick with what has been working for me for the past 11 months and stop listening to the ever changing diet and fitness news. :eek:
 
I'm willing to bet

they weren't doing sts or running in the top end of their heart rate for an hour three times a week. Sheesh, "it won't raise the metabolism" :p
 
What was concluded was " that while people do burn more fat when they are exercising than when they are not, they have no greater ability to burn fat over the next 24 hours than on days when they are couch potatoes." So, fat burning IS increased while exercising, but it appears that it doesn´t continue afterward. :( But I agree with hiitdogs...just continue what I´m doing!
 
I know, I did CC Press Play today and I be darned if that didn't raise my metabolism! I found out over time that steady state cardio doesn't do much for me when it comes to weightloss, HIIT and interval training is a different story though.

I thought it was interesting that they said that muscle burns a lot less calories than previously thought. 5 or 7 calories per pound of muscle in comparison to 2 for each pound of fat, that's not a whole lot. I had read that in another study before.

I hope people won't take that as an excuse to not exercise though.
 
hiitdogs said:
Maybe it is just me but no article comes up on the link in Klaudia's post.

I don't think it was the same article. But thanks for taking the time to moderate the forum!
Click to expand...

Hi Carola,

The link in Klaudia's post no longer works, but it actually was originally referring to the same article that you posted. (I guess MSNBC moved the article's initial location a couple days after her post??)

The comments that were posted there are all related to the same article & topic as your post. HTH clear up the confusion. :)
 
hiitdogs said:
I know, I did CC Press Play today and I be darned if that didn't raise my metabolism! I found out over time that steady state cardio doesn't do much for me when it comes to weightloss, HIIT and interval training is a different story though.

I thought it was interesting that they said that muscle burns a lot less calories than previously thought. 5 or 7 calories per pound of muscle in comparison to 2 for each pound of fat, that's not a whole lot. I had read that in another study before.

I hope people won't take that as an excuse to not exercise though.
Click to expand...

I asked this question to an exercise physiologist and he replied that the reason for that exaggerated, higher number for muscle burning calories was that muscle alone was not separated from other non-fat tissue.

The majority of our caloric burn comes from just being alive (our BMR). For example, my BMR is 1200-1300. But, daily (relatively low) activity only burns another 300 calories. More calories can be burned by adding exercise.

His explanation was that they considered everything NOT fat as muscle, which is not true. Therefore, it was thought that muscle tissue burned a lot more calories than it actually does.
 
hiitdogs said:
I hope people won't take that as an excuse to not exercise though.
Click to expand...

And I think that's what the authors fear, too! Just because it seems to not keep our metabolism raised as long a previously thought, doesn't mean exercise doesn't have tons of other advantages...of which we can all testify ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top